Talk:Unreal (1998 video game)

message: There have been several edits after a deface a few years ago and one of those has removed the release dates from the infobox on the right. Then there has been 2 uncited changes that added the date as April 30:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unreal_%281998_video_game%29&type=revision&diff=713969422&oldid=711467804 <-- changes the text to say April 1998 instead of May 1998
# https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unreal_%281998_video_game%29&type=revision&diff=757487496&oldid=754591435 <-- this adds the PC release date as April 30 to the infobox
The correct date for PC release is May 22 as confirmed by older versions of the page and this page at EpicGames.com: https://www.epicgames.com/community/celebrating-15-years-of-unreal-with-a-steam-sale  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:1811:C200:8485:B88E:68CC:D2F7 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article features wrong date

message: Pardon me, but all survivors are, by default, alive. Hence, I'm modifying it. Could have done it silently, but was compelled to share with u guys. rohith 07:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cf. gold master, ready for release. I'll fix it up. Dysprosia 10:55, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I have done so.  Zaxxon 02:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Actually, I think it might be extraneous info not necessarily relevant to an encyclopedia article on the game.  Perhaps simply mentioning that UT99 came on a CD, UT2k3 on several, and UT2k4 on several CDs plus the introduction of a DVD version would be adequate.  Thanks for fixing my fix, BTW Corvus.  :)  Zaxxon 13:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that both UT2k3 and UT2k4 CD/DVD distributions included an installer for Linux may interest some people.  --That Guy, From That Show! 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was copy and pasted from Planet Unreal, which is a copyright violation anyway. I removed it. K1Bond007 July 6, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
I don't think the sentance, "The planet Na Pali is rich in Tarydium, an exotic crystal that possesses a high energy yield, whose utility is the reason for which the Skaarj have invaded..." is completely accurate because, when I played the game, I don't remember it ever saying why the Skaarj attacked, so I don't think it is correct to state it as fact. It may have been in the novels, but I have not read them so correct me if I'm wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repzik (talk contribs) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "..killing all ''survivors found alive''"? SURVIVORS FOUND ALIVE??

message: Shall we ditch the ridiculously large Creatures section?
: Looks like someone removed it already. In my opinion a seperate page would be better ("Creatures in the Unreal Series" ? ). Pasting it in the main article looks a bit like nonsense to me too, but i do think the creatures section has the right to be here. -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Sat Dec 31 23:44:32 UTC 2005
::I've tried to shorten it a bit by organising it into columns.  This makes the page more attractive, but there's still a lot of stuff there.  A separate page might be best.  That's certainly how other games have dealt with longs lists of enemies and weapons.  --Plumbago 12:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creatures section

message: I think that the sorting of the creatures section is very inaccurate. At first glance I would think that groups Friendly, Hostile and Neutral would imply something along the lines of:
*Friendly: Helps the player in some way
*Hostile: Tries to kill player
*Neutral: Doesn't do either, just sits around and does nothing :P
This clearly does not fit in with what is shown on the page. After some thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the sorting of the creatures on the page implies this:
*Friendly: Either helps the player or does nothing
*Hostile: Tries to kill player because wants to/programmed to (in other words is an important enemy in the game)
*Neutral: Tries to kill player but only because its some stupid creature that kills for food or to protect itself (meaning its not working for the Skaarj, its just a dumb creature in the way of players progress)
I think this is a pretty ambigious definition of Friendly, Hostile and Neutral. I think the best thing would be to put it into 4 groups. A "Friendly" group, a "Neutral" group, an "Enemy (working for Skaarj)" group and an "Annoying Monster" group, with a definition of each underneath. I'm gonna do this myself, and i'm writing all of this so you understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. --AndreRD 09:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting of Creatures Section

message: This section doesn't seem at all appropriate for a Wiki entry so I've deleted it. --MMAN2 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Troubleshooting

message: ASMD stands for And Suck My Dick.  Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny Trivia

message: Shouldn't someone replace the current boxart with something more appropiate? The current boxart shown is for Unreal Gold and not of the original game itself. --StalwartUK 21:24, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxart 

message: I will delete the Weapons section with respect to WP:NOT#INFO. To a lesser extent, I can also invoke the ubiquitous WP:NOT#GUIDE and scope guidelines. Ong elvin 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons Section 

message: There is an cd, History Of Unreal Music, containing 23 tracks:
*1. Flightcastle (U)
*2. Shared Dig (U)
*3. Dusk Horizon (U)
*4. Bluff Eversmoking (U)
*5. Isotoxin (U)
*6. Unreal Temple (U)
*7. Return To Pali (URTNP)
*8. Unreal Tournament Menu (UT)
*9. Foregone Destruction (UT)
*10. Go Down (UT)
*11. Botpack Nine (UT)
*12. Mechanism Eight (UT)
*13. Skyward Fire (UT)
*14. Razorback (UT)
*15. The Course (UT)
*16. Unreal Tournament Menu (Redux) (UT 2004)
*17. Ghost Of Anubis (UT 2004)
*18. Infernal Realm (UT 2004)
*19. Assault (UT 2004)
*20. Arena (UT 2004)
*21. From Below (UT 2004)
*22. Sniper Time (UT 2004)
*23. Onslaught One (UT 2004)
Mallerd 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there's already an article containing that information: Unreal Anthology Mallerd (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Wasn't there something about how the net code sucked, or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.185.108 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Initially, the multiplayer mode was almost unplayable, due to lag issues not forseen by Epic.  By the time they fixed it, QuakeII had passed them in the market, or at least in gamer opinion.  (Or at least, that's how I temember it from ten years ago.) --BlueNight (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, the first non-beta patch was released in may 1999, a year after release - and just a few months before unreal tournament came out. I remember felling a bit ripped off by that at the time. 82.39.139.136 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiplayer 

message: "As it turns out, the player is to be terminated due to the fact this assignment is 'Deep Ultra' classified. The player reaches the bridge, activates the ELT transmitter, and does battle with a platoon of Marines. After a hard battle, the player manages to escape into a nearby mine system where they emerge at the Spire valley, which is located right next to the Sunspire."  No way!  I never escaped the Marines, and always thought it was a cool way to end a game, with infinite waves of enemies coming at you, forcing the player to a slow, painful, and inevitable death!  I'll have to replay it! --BlueNight (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! You missed like half the game! --Deuxsonic (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Pack 

message: Unreal Gold is a re-release of the original game and expansion, both of which are covered in Unreal. The changes in Gold can be discussed as part of the Unreal article. Re-releases and compilations rarely warrant their own article, and I don't see anything about Unreal Gold that would make an exception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold merge 

message: This unofficial patch located on http ://www.oldunreal.com adds native linux support, decals, native fixes such as better dualcore support, updated Direct 3D 9 and OpenGL support, as well as new built in security features among other things like increased stability overall. I believe a few links could be added in.
ColorblindArtist (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the users above are affiliated with the unofficial patch/website. I encourage them to have a read at WP:COI. Neither the site nor the unofficial patch is covered in reliable sources which is a basic requirement for verifiability. The links to the site are unsolicited and self-promotional, which makes them WP:SPAM, regardless of how valuable the authors think their work is. Certainly, had you done your own homework and read Wikipedia's policies, you would not have attempted to advertise your work/website here, much less insert a personal attack in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Primary sources (that would be you) and user-generated content (forums) are not reliable sources. Also, using sockpuppets to make edits and vandalize other users' pages doesn't move the discussion in your favor. Simply put, you have now invalidated any claim you might have had to good faith, which makes it easier to justify reverting your edits as plain vandalism. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes me wonder, just how much good content ISN'T being put on wikipedia from good people. We aren't even citing the forums of oldunreal as a source, we're citing the actual patch that was created, that you can install and run yourself and see that it is infact viable. Also; none of those people listed in that defaced article are even affiliated with this patch. I also noticed that it was edited by an IP that is not mine; nor Smirftsch's.
ColorblindArtist (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifying things yourself is WP:OR. What the encyclopedia considers "good content" is information that is verifiable in reliable sources, period, of which nothing relating to the oldunreal website or patch is. What you consider "good content" is neither here nor there, but obviously you are not unbiased with respect to your own work. Whether the anon IPs belong to you, Smirftsch, meatpuppets, or otherwise unaffiliated people who tipped you off to the edit is indeterminable, and for the purposes of this discussion, largely irrelevant: I will point out that you and Smirftsch both managed to post on SPAs on the same day that edits by an anon were reverted. Unless you are claiming that this all happened by some cosmic coincidence, all these edits and your participation in this discussion are linked together. You can deny it, but it isn't plausible by any stretch. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Smirftsch, since you are unable to address the actual points provided (did you actually read the policies linked to? Probably not, or you wouldn't continue to advocate original research), I don't feel like responding to your straw man arguments. By all means, call an administrator if you think there is anything inappropriate about my cleanup and maintenance of the article. You should realize that encouraging your friends and forum-goers to post on your behalf does not absolve you of responsibility for their actions. Again, see WP:MEATPUPPET. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Btw, the dmoz link, as usual, serves the purpose of deflecting a collection of fansite links to a website that is more appropriately suited to hosting them. Can you take a hint here? Btw, if you disagree with the Moby link, I won't contest a removal. So go ahead and do that, if it will solve your contention. Otherwise, I encourage you, again, to actually read WP:SPAM and note that the presence of other questionable links is not justification for adding more. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with AMIB here. Although your work on Unreal is commendable (I was a fan of the game myself when it first came out), it can't be mentioned in the article because of a lack of reliable secondary sources. The kind of thing that would help here is a mention in a magazine such as PC Format, Edge or something similar. We'd even consider some online sources like Gamespot, IGN, ActionTrip, 1UP and so on as long as it's propoer content and not a forum posting or a blog entry. If there's something like that lurking around that you can show us and that we agree meets the criteria of being a reliable source, then we can put some information in. Not too much - we need to make sure that the article is balanced and that we don't give a section undue weight. So, help us out with finding some top notch sourcing, and we'll help you out by making sure it's in there properly. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I just sort of stumbled upon this debate, but why are all mentions of the Linux port being removed? Other games with source ports (e.g. Doom, Quake, Descent, Duke Nukem 3D, etc) typically mention them, at least in passing and in the "supported platforms" in the infobox. TheWarlock (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've been reading this a bit more. Is the problem that there aren't external sources on a very niche issue, or is the problem that 98.117.193.137 isn't allowed to add a link to his own website? The Descent (video game) article, for instance, has a one-sentence blurb on the platforms it's been unofficially ported to, and I don't see how that's inappropriate for this article as well. TheWarlock (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi TheWarlock.  The main problem is that there are no external sources.  It's a secondary problem that 98.X.X.X has not accepted this policy and continues to edit (and has made threats).  If you could find a 3rd party references that meets WP:VS guidelines, there'd be no problem.  I note your edit and reference is of the same type edit - I believe it also suffers from the same problem, and I'd request you to revert the edit yourself first..  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be annoying here, but virtually every other video game-based article allows primary sources to be used as references in this type of case. Clearly the port exists. WP:RS states that primary sources can be used for, and I quote, "basic statements of fact", which is all that I'm using it for. (It's not as if the entire article is revolving around this or other primary sources). I think I'm well within the rules here. TheWarlock (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not annoying :-)  You're very entitled to discuss and question - that's what the Talk page is for.  Reviewing WP:RS, I agree that your edit is being used as a basic statement of fact and does not need a 3rd party source to verify.  I've crossed out my suggestion - I'm happy to leave it as it is.  --HighKing (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest blocking StalwartUK's editing rights to this page due to bias opinion against 227, posted publically here http://www.unrealsp.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9591#9591 and seeing he has numerously edited this out even though it is clearly within rules of wikipedia. ColorblindArtist (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you are a developer of 227 apparently you most certainly have a biased opinion towards the 227 patch. My edits are fully within the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:SOAP and WP:EL. I have also been able to find an official statement from Epic Games on their own website on what they think of the patch. As far as I know it is most certainly against the rules to plug a Wikipedia article to advertise or otherwise promote a product or service. StalwartUK (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I'm not a developer of that patch, and I've justified my edits by WP:RS, so please don't remove information from Wikipedia after a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Thanks. TheWarlock (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why do you think I haven't ever edited the page? ColorblindArtist (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial 227 patch 

message: Another possibility is to place this content on a more appropriate wiki, such as http://wiki.beyondunreal.com, which deals specifically with the subject in great depth and may allow for more obscure information to be added. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki

message: Nobody is saying that this patch doesn't exist. Further proof that it exists is not necessary.
Instead, the problem is that no reliable source has seen fit to comment. Wikipedia isn't like a magazine or a newspaper, where writers will personally verify facts by going and checking them personally or by interviewing those who were present. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, seeking to use those sources that are like a magazine or newspaper both to verify that factual claims are true and identify claims important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. This latter part is key: we aren't mentioning this particular Unreal fan patch not because we don't think it exists, but rather because there are many things that exist so we must follow the lead of reliable sources in determining which things to cover.
Pointing us to people to contact or sources which don't meet our standards isn't helpful in solving the real problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with AMIB here. Although your work on Unreal is commendable (I was a fan of the game myself when it first came out), it can't be mentioned in the article because of a lack of reliable secondary sources. The kind of thing that would help here is a mention in a magazine such as PC Format, Edge or something similar. We'd even consider some online sources like Gamespot, IGN, ActionTrip, 1UP and so on as long as it's propoer content and not a forum posting or a blog entry. If there's something like that lurking around that you can show us and that we agree meets the criteria of being a reliable source, then we can put some information in. Not too much - we need to make sure that the article is balanced and that we don't give a section undue weight. So, help us out with finding some top notch sourcing, and we'll help you out by making sure it's in there properly. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I just sort of stumbled upon this debate, but why are all mentions of the Linux port being removed? Other games with source ports (e.g. Doom, Quake, Descent, Duke Nukem 3D, etc) typically mention them, at least in passing and in the "supported platforms" in the infobox. TheWarlock (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've been reading this a bit more. Is the problem that there aren't external sources on a very niche issue, or is the problem that 98.117.193.137 isn't allowed to add a link to his own website? The Descent (video game) article, for instance, has a one-sentence blurb on the platforms it's been unofficially ported to, and I don't see how that's inappropriate for this article as well. TheWarlock (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi TheWarlock.  The main problem is that there are no external sources.  It's a secondary problem that 98.X.X.X has not accepted this policy and continues to edit (and has made threats).  If you could find a 3rd party references that meets WP:VS guidelines, there'd be no problem.  I note your edit and reference is of the same type edit - I believe it also suffers from the same problem, and I'd request you to revert the edit yourself first..  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be annoying here, but virtually every other video game-based article allows primary sources to be used as references in this type of case. Clearly the port exists. WP:RS states that primary sources can be used for, and I quote, "basic statements of fact", which is all that I'm using it for. (It's not as if the entire article is revolving around this or other primary sources). I think I'm well within the rules here. TheWarlock (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not annoying :-)  You're very entitled to discuss and question - that's what the Talk page is for.  Reviewing WP:RS, I agree that your edit is being used as a basic statement of fact and does not need a 3rd party source to verify.  I've crossed out my suggestion - I'm happy to leave it as it is.  --HighKing (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest blocking StalwartUK's editing rights to this page due to bias opinion against 227, posted publically here http://www.unrealsp.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9591#9591 and seeing he has numerously edited this out even though it is clearly within rules of wikipedia. ColorblindArtist (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you are a developer of 227 apparently you most certainly have a biased opinion towards the 227 patch. My edits are fully within the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:SOAP and WP:EL. I have also been able to find an official statement from Epic Games on their own website on what they think of the patch. As far as I know it is most certainly against the rules to plug a Wikipedia article to advertise or otherwise promote a product or service. StalwartUK (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I'm not a developer of that patch, and I've justified my edits by WP:RS, so please don't remove information from Wikipedia after a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Thanks. TheWarlock (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why do you think I haven't ever edited the page? ColorblindArtist (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some fresh insight

message: I have blocked the anon IP address (98.117.193.137) who was edit-warring on this article. Furthermore, this anon editor made a number of threats on User talk:HighKing that if the content was removed again, other editors would be mobilized to spam the article. Consequently, I have semi-protected this as a preventative measure for 1 week, preventing anonymous or newly registered editord from editing it.Additionally, I have a warning that needs to be known to all: if I detect a collaborative campaign to edit war in the same or similar mannner to that which has just been stopped now, I will not hesitate to block the users concerned for increasing lengths of time, and the article may end up being fully-protected. If the contested material is thought to be worthy of being included, it should be discussed on this talk page first, and consensus agreed before it is added. Sorry for this action, but preventing further disruptive actions by one or more editors seemed the best way to proceed at this point. My comments do not refer to the work of any established editors who have generally behaved quite correctly in all of this.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection and a Warning

message: Hi, it is inappropriate to state that the game had a Linux release since this was not officially released by the company at the time, and was never for sale or supported.  --HighKing (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps a formal statement on the forum by one of Epic's developers should suffice. They created the game so who is likely to be more official than them? Texcarson (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is appropriate because of WP:RS primary sources - it is not stated that the game had the Linux port, instead, it means that the game now has the port. That's a basic fact and it cannot be denied. --78.56.57.236 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not officially it doesn't...  As a friendly suggestion - you know an article on the unofficial version of Unreal with info about the patches and the Linux release (all the stuff that you're having difficulty putting in here) would probably be a valid article in it's own right, and can be linked from this article....  --HighKing (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux Release 

message: Article: "Epic Games made the source code available externally in an effort to maintain the code."
This is at least vague and very likely to be interpreted incorrectly. The source code is not available publicly, Epic Games only gave Smirftsch of OldUnreal.com access to the secret source code with the sole purpose to fix bugs and create a new patch. This patch is currently under construction under the name Unreal 227. I suggest the article should be updated to reflect these changes. I will not burn my fingers by editing it myself, because changes to this article are a very sensitive matter. 82.176.182.253 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Can you provide a reference for this?  --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info can be found [http ://www.oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html here]. A full, third party reference of a big gaming source what you may be looking for is something I cannot find. This may be caused by the fact that the patch is still in beta and has been in development for a long time by a small group of developers for a relatively small community. If still needed, some third party reference to this patch can be found at: Unreal.com Small note for upgraders at The Unreal.com homepage. Added by Epic because old Unreal clients point to this URL. | Epic's official forums, Question posted by StalwartUK, who is also editing this article. | UnrealSP, news archive, "Testrelease of Unreal patch 227!" dated 28/Dec/2007 | Hyper.nl Unreal Services news page, "Unreal patch 227 public beta released" dated December 27, 2007. Please note that this is my own website. | Liandri Archives, BeyondUnreal, Unreal article, section patches mentions OldUnreal's work as well. 82.176.182.253 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Disregarding what, the lengthy discussions above that resulted in editor and administrator consensus to remove the links? What's your strategy here, that maybe if you're absurd enough, your wishes will come true? Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, you disregard all arguments you don't like, which are the majority of the ones given above. You want to press your own personal interests despite not having any objective sources to back them up. You even admit that no one cares enough to cover the subject without a bribe of some sort. I am acting in accordance with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies, which was agreed upon by a consensus of editors. You keep talking about me as if I was the one who got shot down by the community. That was you, not me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial updates

message: Should this article have a gameplay section? Does it need one? I was a little surprised to see a lack thereof... --PenguinCopter (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay? 

message: I re-added a statement about the 227f version to the infobox, seeing as Unreal Tournament mentions version 451 which is unofficial as well. Texcarson (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that doesn't count either here. And my question about adding the wiki above is completely ignored also, although even proposed by Highking.--Smirftsch (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The 451 version shouldn't be in the UT infobox either, and I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: A brain inside these people's head. UnrealCoopNet (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

text: What's missing is reliable sources to verify what you just said. This is the same thing that has been asked for ever since the first edit conflict, and has yet to be provided. You made the claim that sources from Epic exist, and yet did not bother to provide one. Did you even try to research it or did you go straight to fabrication? Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can verify that the patch exists by going to oldunreal.com - or see that http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=531232 Epic approves and acknowledges the existence of the patch. UnrealCoopNet (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Existence" is not being disputed. It is also not sufficient for inclusion, as discussed previously. Which of the posters in the thread you linked is a representative of Epic Games? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  So - over a year since it started - do you think we can put this 227f thing to bed?  I'm tired of seeing the "leave it in/take it out" edits showing up on my watchlist.  Unreal is a great game - i'm playing it again, thanks to GOG - but is it worth all this he said/she said crap?Johnmc (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 227f

message: LEAVE THE MENTION FOR 227F THERE IS A SITE DEDICATED TO IT CommanderWorf (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FUCK, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN

message: as Oldunreal.com is mentioned/linked in german, french, italian, dutch wikipedia it seems strange not to mention/link it in english wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali chaudhry (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-English versions of articles are usually translated versions of the English one, hence you often see a lot more, well, crap on them. Oftentimes, people will just copy the English version, and if the English version is full of bloat, the translated one will be, too. It's a recurring problem, and I just kind of leave those articles outside the English version alone. Eik Corell (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for your arrogance. Meanwhile, with no flagged revisions and with more vandalism and trolling than ever, this wiki is crumbling on itself. Hrotovice (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy link for Oldunreal.com from other wikipedia.  

message: hi, recently Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which is an accepted reliable secondary source according to WP standards see WP:VG/S, has mentioned the 2.27 patch. Hope this will finally solve this long standing dispute. cheers and merry xmas Shaddim (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source for 2.27 patch found (finally) 

message: I think the article should mention that the AI of enemies was quite advanced for the time. As far as I know this is the first FPS game where an enemy would dodge the player's missiles. Some enemies could also feign death, for example. Fighting the Skarj warriors for the first time was quite an astonishing experience - it almost felt like playing against a human in a multiplayer match, due to the constant movement. Such bot behaviour wasn't seen before the game's release, so I think it needs a mention in the article. Mike 85.222.87.53 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Descent was not a real FPS; it was more a combat flight sim, so that game doesn't count. The AI in Unreal *was* something special at the time for a FPS, and I personally remember reading reviews back then that gushed about it. But to avoid original research, here's 5 cites for you from reviews at the time, and I've *purposely* selected cites that directly mention the AI being better than other shooters of the era. (1) http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/unreal/review.html = "One of Unreal's best features is the enemy AI. In other games, the logic of certain creature actions seems to be linear and undefined. In Unreal, each opponent attacks with its own style, using a combination of melee and ranged attacks." (2) http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/814/unreal/ = "There's been much hype around Steven Polge coding the AI (he created the Quake Reaper Bot), and the team claimed that fighting them would be like fighting human players. Well, not quite. But the Skaarj (and variants) do duck, strafe, roll, dodge, flank, and fire better than any enemy AI seen before in a shooter." (3) http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/unreal-tournament = "One of the most notable features of UT is the incredibly good AI. [...] To put it bluntly, no one has ever programmed a better AI in a FPS". (Note: Unreal Tournament uses the same engine as Unreal). (4) http://www.moddb.com/games/unreal = "[with] monster AI (that's Artificial Intelligence to you) from Steve ("ReaperBot") Polge, your adversaries will be smarter, meaner, and more alive than any you’ve ever faced." (5) http://www.gamegenie.com/reviews/pc/napali.html = "Back when Unreal debuted, the AI was revolutionary". Conclusion: yes, the AI coding definitely *was* way ahead of other FPS games at the time, and I agree that it should be mentioned in the article, as it's a pivotal point in FPS history. SJ2571 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If, for example, a Skaarj was accidentally hit by a Tentacle during a fight, it would attack the Tentacle (usually if the player was no longer "available"). I think it was the Skaarj Berserkers who would even start fighting among themselves. -- megA (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but Quake's monsters would fight amongst themselves like that too, and Quake came before Unreal. WPWatcher (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  creature AI 

message: I added an External link section at the end and included one link to UnrealSP.Org. The section and link were soon deleted. I've read the wiki on external links and I'm trying to understand why the link was deleted. Is it because UnrealSP.Org is a fan site?Jdmaloney (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. WP:FANSITE, #11 specifically, deals with this. Eik Corell (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Jdmaloney (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The "third party" who received the code are the people behind unrealsp org. Hrotovice (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the talk page. JuanJose (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party

message: Epic's full name when the game was published in 1998 was "Epic MegaGames". Per the Epic Games article, the name change took place in 1999. You can even see the purple Epic MegaGames logo in the box art attached to this article. I've changed the opening paragraph and the info box. 63.126.72.25 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epic MegaGames 

message: "Unreal is known for boosting the expectations of 3D graphics considerably. Compared to its peers in the genre, such as Quake II, Unreal brought to life not only highly-detailed indoor environments, but also easily the most impressive outdoor landscapes ever seen at the time."
I'm seeing this sprinkled every so often through this article. That kind of tone is okay for editorials, but this is an encyclopedia. On top of that there are many paragraphs at a time without any citations to be seen. I'll be adding a cleanup tag soon. -Miranda (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this wording shows up in info that a video game article is not supposed to have, anyway. Hence, I removed the stuff that immediately stands out. Eik Corell (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock wording much? 

message: SiN was released on the same year Unreal was released! =O
--68.103.165.33 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So was Animaniacs: Ten Pin Alley - it's a conspiracy!  Seriously - what's your point?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: The protagonist of this game seems to vary in name and gender, depending on the player's choice. But, my question is this: As far as the developers at Epic Games are concerned, is Prisoner 849 canonically (as in officially) male or canonically female? Just curious, because in this article, the character is described with female pronouns. DJ Autagirl (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A default install of all the unreal versions features the "Female One" class, with the default skin of "Gina" as the player for both online and offline play. If you change this in player setup, that is what you will play as in single player and multiplayer. It's a commonly held belief by the unreal community that the player (Prisoner 849) canonically is female. That, and the alpha/beta versions follow that trend where in some versions you can only play as Gina, because there is no player selection even implemented. ColorblindArtist (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I just beat the game (Steam, Unreal Gold 226).  I didn't realize there was even options to customize the player until reading this.  So, there's two things happening here: 1) the default character is female and 2) the character is customizable.  In the article, the plot for the base game is written as gender neutral where the plot for the expansion is written as "him."  For consistency sake, the expansion plot should have its pronouns changed to neutral.  "Him" doesn't make sense considering "him" is not even default.  Perhaps it should be written like Saints Row where there's no need to specify the gender of "the Boss:" just refer to the player as exclusively "Prisoner 849" or "the prisoner."  The prisoner is never really free. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, there was only one instance of "him" in the article and it was part of a wordy sentence.  Decided to clean it up substituting the gender neutral "their" in the process.  I think, in regards to Prisoner 849, it now completely gender neutral. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner 849 

message: Can anyone provide an actual source? Because the guy isn't credited as artist in anything else. -- TVippy  11:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeney was an ARTIST on the game too?  

message: According to this article by Unseen64, there was a PS1 port in the works at some point, outsourced to a company called Pterodactyl. 2804:D4B:7924:6B00:3193:9A0:222F:CD6F (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PlayStation port