Talk:Aces High (video game)

Names

Do the developer's names really need to be internlly linked? As of now, they're all readlinks but one; that one being an article about a different person. OOZ662 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory Online Experience Section

Per Wiki standards all points of view must be presented, to include critisism. Chairboy is against the section, claiming it is "wildly POV". The section can be verified with actual online films and voice recordings, which I'll upload to YouTube and use as cites for each claim in the section.--Scribner 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This section in its current form is unacceptably POV, and doesn't cite any references. Please review No Original Research to see why your personal videos are not an acceptable form of evidence, and please find other references before adding the section back. In its current form, it is an attack and fails the neutral point of view policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 11:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doh, accidentally reverted the section. I plan to remove it today if these concerns aren't addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the unreferenced tag to the 'Derogatory online experience' section, as the rest of the article seems pretty well sourced by the first external link, while that specific section is quite dearth of references. The motivation of the editor running that section seems in conflict with NPOV, but it could be fixed up with some reliable data. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added specific references to the article where appropriate, and have moved the unreferenced tag back to the derogatory section as requested. This should clear up the concerns that Scribner has, and I look forward to seeing the 'derogatory' section fixed up the same way, otherwise it really should be removed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy Please do not remove or move the tag I've placed on this article. Thanks.--Scribner 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're putting an unreferenced tag on the article when references exist? I've footnoted it with sources, I'm guessing that you may have missed them. Instead of just reverting, do you mind talking about it here instead? Please note that you do not own the article, so unless you can explain why you've left the unreferenced tag there with it properly footnoted, expect it to change again. But let's talk instead of just reverting. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that the foul language is not a part of the game itself, but rather of the community which has grown up around it. Also note that this kind of behaviour happens in ALL forms of community activities, including the vast majority of online games and even Wikipedia itself. Therefore, since it is neither planned (merely spontanious from the community) nor unique (but common to many online venues) I suggest the section be removed. An alternative would be to rewrite the section, focusing on the lack of administration and developer involvement of online activity (a unique and planned aspect of the game) which should be intrinsically less POV than at present.Dudecon 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dudecon, the language of the other players is a part of the game.--Scribner 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main article is referenced quite well, and therefore I have removed the tag from the top of the article. The subsection has no references at all so I added some tags there. If references aren't provided within a couple of days, that section should be removed entirely. Unreferenced POV doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Verifiability is required. IrishGuy ^talk 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section

Now were it should have been placed instead of deleated:

Aces High is open to players of all ages, children included. Despite player-report functions a player will experience a great deal of vulgarity and adult language. Players are often harassed and experience personal attacks. The online version of the game does not have an ESBN rating.

Administration of the game also fails with regard to game cheats. While HiTech Creations claims to use many avenues to monitor fair play, game cheats reported by players are common.

Comment on the forum link: That link is to the game's forum where only members of the game may post and the threads are monitored by the game admin. Forums normally shouldn't be used to cite material but in this case the members are in fact an established group. Since the forum resides on the game's main webpage and is monitored by the games admin I see no verifiability problems.--Scribner 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Forum links do NOT meet WP:RS in any way, shape or form. SirFozzie 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The links provided throughout are all primary source, from the game website. The forum resides on the game's website and is monitored by the owners. One is as reliable as the other. But I'll drop that for now.--Scribner 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Primary source cites

This article was nothing more than free advertising, that was cited with a primary source from the game's website. Little is verifiable in the article other than to state what is claimed by the HTC. It's original research for any editor to state as fact a claim made by HTC that is not verified by a source other than HTC.--Scribner 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing any disscusion on the habitual protection of this page. It's cited incorrectly and protected in an incorrect state. What gives?--Scribner 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From Brooke618: See below the section on "Sources". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke618 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PT 04.jpg

Image:PT 04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B17g.jpg

Image:B17g.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seafire.jpg

Image:Seafire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spit14.jpg

Image:Spit14.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fw b242.jpg

Image:Fw b242.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

can someone lock the page so no pne can edit it? this is getting ridiculus.Ruusan (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and one piece of vandalism a day probably won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

sources

There was a tag on the article about insufficient sources, citing that Wiki likes to have sources from good third-party locations. However, as this is a game, and as the article is about the game, and because such things are generally not written up in reference books, the best citations about capabilities of the game are to the manufacturer's site, which is what was done here. Thus, I removed the tag about insufficient sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke618 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been more tags put up about this references issue (as of October 6, 2008 or so). I removed the tag just as before for the same reasons as before. From Brooke618 (talk).

Citations don't have to come from reference books; articles in notable third-party publications, like PC Gamer or Wired, for instance, are perfectly fine. I've tagged the page for those. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand that the best source of information about a game is the manufacturer's web site the gives the information? A magazine article doesn't and is only a paraphrasing of what is in a good user's manual. Also, this game isn't going to be in Wired magazine or PC Gamer, even if citing that over manufacturer's information were preferable (which it isn't). Please, quit being a boob. Brooke618 (talk)

Primary sources are not enough. Wikipedia requires reliable, third-party published sources both as a reference for claims and to establish notability. If this game isn't notable enough to be mentioned in such sources, then the article will be deleted sooner or later. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Riot, good luck fighting this fight, fanbois of computer games have decreed that Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to them as you can see.Awotter (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of the text has been removed...

I just noticed that Eik Corell removed the vast majority of the text from this article. Whilst I recognise that the article before Eik Corell's edit may have been a bit of a mess (but it wasn't that bad!), I believe that the article in it current state is insufficient, and does not even begin to describe the game. Therefore, after looking at other pages for more prominent games, I have decided to revert the article to before Eik Corell's edit, to provide a base from which the article can be improved.

If you disagree with this, please let me know - I'll endeavour to improve the article in the meantime!

ResPublicae (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists of things like aircraft, ships, or weapons do not belong in video game articles because it's considered gamecruft, essentially filler to substitute real content and info about the game. I removed the external links I did because they were links to unofficial fansites and guides to the game, which Wikipedia doesn't deal with unless they notable. Notability is established by coverage by reliable third party sources, and those websites have received no such coverage. Now, the gameplay section itself is confusing and ambiguous - Concepts are not explained properly, and the ones given are only in passing such as this gem of confusion - "Snapshots are like one-frame scenarios but more informal, with many fewer participants." Eik Corell 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't seen that Wikipedia page! Do you have any tips on how this article could be improved overall, aside from what's in those guidelines? ResPublicae (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated entire article

I just updated the entire article, and added inline citations to third party sources. Please let me know if there are any problems with what I've done. ResPublicae (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aces High (video game). 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/20080418051217/http://svsl1.hitechcreations.com:80/smf/index.php to http://svsl1.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php

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) 09:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Page desperately needs to be updated

I will add some links and content here, just currently trying to pull down all the needed information and create the needed images to describe the updates --going to work on this for the next few weeks as a personal project --though really I think a separate page or a reformulation of the page should be done, as a whole. There are several updates, different game engine, and added features since the article was last updated --the links and game-wiki (which I contribute to has been changed and/or updated as well). After finishing with the game wiki I will bring some of the content this way and update the needed information --though help would certainly be appreciated, as there is a lot to update --particularly in the way of option and AI changes. There is new map developing software and other such that should also be added S1id3r0 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So, is it now Aces High III or Aces High? Steam calls it III, with a new logo, but the website seems to de-emphasise the number. Are II and III separate products, or version numbers? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• https://web.archive.org/web/20020320023918/http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/february02/aceshigh/