Talk:Alien Arena

version

Afaik 2008 is the latest. But it is not another game just a newer version. Screenshots can be kept till someone uploads new ones. -- Cyger (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

QUIT REMOVING THE SCREENSHOTS!

These screensots have been put on the page with the specific agreement of the creator of the game; in fact, it was his idea (we've discussed this on the forum.) There is no copyright infringement here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.90.47 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• If he's willing to license them under a free license, such as the Gnu Free Document Licence, have him email permissions-en@wikimedia.org from a verifiable email address explicitly releasing the images under a free license, such as the GFDL, the Free Art License or CC-BY-SA-3.0 You can read more about licensing here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses in the meantime. WilyD 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I just alerted Irritant to that and it looks like he's gotten it settled. 71.107.90.47 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" section

Not only is the section written in a very defensive and poor tone (not to the standard of Wikipedia), but the "positive" reviews posted are not valid sources for Wikipedia. All five are self-published, possibly blogs, and one link no longer exists.

Furthermore, the negative reviews of the game should not be defaced with the comment that it's written by "other game communities." For example, the review discussed there was not for another game community, it was negative to the very poor quality of the Linux.com article. The version the comment is at now, the section is biased and should be modified.

I would have made these changes myself, but I doubt they would have stayed for long. As it is, the section is poor and should be modified. I enjoy Alien Arena 2008 and hope to see a good article written for it at some point. This can happen without such defensive writing.

Here's a new suggestion:

Reception for Alien Arena has typically been positive, (cite several reviews), with reviewers noting that, "quote review" (cite review). Some negative points have been written as well, with some reviewers discussing the "quote review" (cite reviews). 64.213.218.195 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps reassessment is an order

This article has come along way since it was given a "start" classification. It's about time this article was given further consideration for a "C" rating.

67.169.152.137 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do game reviews really belong in the references section?

If they're examples and not sources, perhaps they belong in "external links?" -MaxWinsForever (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to cite the game's source code

The game engine has no citations, yet all the information is factual. Is it okay to cite the game itself, or the source code of the game?

-MaxWinsForever (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Current edits of this article.

Eik Correll, this is primarily directed to you. You have been removing sections, some of which can be agreed upon, but placing the notability flag is inappropriate.

I hope that it is just a matter of you not knowing the signifigance of the game and how the game stands in the history of FPS games.

First off, the game is one of the most popular, long standing freeware FPS games in existence. This alone makes it quite notable. That the game is still currently developed, and appears that it will be for a long time, is also signifigant. That the game has been reviewed, written about, countless numbers of times on major gaming sites, magazines, also makes this game quite notable. I find it ironic that you didn't apply the notablitiy flag to another free game you edited, Warsow, which is certainly no more notable or well known than Alien Arena. This smacks of bias, which will not be tolerated. Releases of Alien Arena are reported thoughout the gaming world, both on paper as well as electronically(note several have made the front page of Slashdot.com). The notability of Alien Arena is WELL established, and cannot be argued at this point.

Also, the engine section is quite important to the notability of the game, so please stop removing it. The CRX engine is one of the most advanced GPL engines in existence, and is has had a major impact on the game's popularity, reviews, and notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienrace (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was actually not the one who added the notability tag, I restored it after it was removed with little reason. The article has only a few references, and the ones under the "critical reception", well, I'll go through them one by one: The linux.com reference is a guide to the game, not an actual review. The junauza is not a reliable source; it's a site dedicated to Linux things, not to video game reviews as reliable sources like Gamespot.com or 1up.com are, for example. Same goes for the Raiden.net review.

Now, the engine section: Details on the engine are immaterial to this article; the article's about the game, not the supposed technological wonder that powers it, unless, once again, it receives coverage from reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like the Linux.com review or not, that was a major review from a very reputable source. You asked for Gamespot? Ok, I've added a review of 12 free games that includes a review of Alien Arena on Gamespot.

The engine IS relevant for the reasons I stated before. Graphic prowess is a large part of ANY game, and should be included in any article(and usually is in the real world) about a game. To satisfy your criteria, I have included a review of the game that is primarily focused on the engine, from a VERY notable source, Phoronix.

Again, I have to suggest that you are showing bias against this game. You edited the Warsow article, which has practically no references of note, no reviews, yet you flag Alien Arena for notability? I suggest you drop editing of this article. You clearly either don't know enough about games, or this game in particular, or you have an agenda that is extremely inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienrace (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Linux.com reference is not a review, it's a gameguide. It it was an actual review, that would have been different. The Gamespot reference is spot on, that one will probably stay. The engine is still not relevant, I have searched and I have found no coverage of it outside sites like Phoronix; namely non-notable Linux-oriented sites. Just because a website has details on it doesn't make it relevant. I am somewhat unsure about whether the Phoronix review should be included, because it's about the engine primarily, not the game. I don't think this site is notable within the scope of video games, but I've requested mediation so let's see. Lastly, please assume good faith, and stop with the allegations of bias. Eik Corell (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be accused of bias then don't do things that make you appear so. Explain the rationale behind your assertion that Warsow is relevant, and Alien Arena is not. Simple as that. I already have clearly outlined the notability of both the game and engine, and you either ignore it, or obfuscate what was being pointed out. You wanted to see why the engine is relevant, so I provided the reference, and then you state that you're not sure the reference is relevant because it's about the engine? That is utterly illogical.

I've already demonstrated why Alien Arena is notable. How can I assume you are working in good faith, if you continue to suggest a game that is not only one of the more popular free games is not notable, but it's also more popular than many current commercial games? You might as well then flag ALL free games as unnotable, such as Warsow, Nexuiz, Open Arena, Sauerbraten, etc, etc, etc, if this is your rationale. Are you trying to suggest than Alien Arena is less notable than these other free games? Please explain yourself, and maybe you won't be met with so much resistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienrace (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Linux.com article most certainly is a review, despite your assertion. The title is "New Alien Arena 6.10 blows away it's FPS competion". The title in and of itself is a review, and an assertion of the game's quality and notability. Yes, the content of the review comes off a bit of a game guide, but the article is still a review, pure and simple. The notability of this review is also very signifigant in the annals of gaming history, as the article was slashdotted, and not only caused a furor in the gaming community, but it also lead to a number of "counterpoint" articles refuting the reviewers claims. Game guides don't make the claims that a game is the best of it's genre as this article did.

Yes, let's get some mediation here, and I still await the explanation of your rationale behind the notability of Warsow vs Alien Arena. Until then I request that you stop removing the sections in question so that the mediators can get a clear idea of what is going on here. Alienrace (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alienrace, Eik has asked me to take a look at the article. Firstly, I don't think the "Game engine" section is a problem at this stage of the article's development. What we really need to look at is the Critical reception, as it's an important section for showing notability and to bring in some third-party material. The relevant policies I'll be using are WP:NPOV and WP:V (and therefore WP:RS). The kind of source most useful to this section are reviews that give the game both positive and negative criticism, published on a site with editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I'm going to take a look the citations now and report back with my opinion. Marasmusine (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Games On Net - this is a press release, which shouldn't be used for critical reception, and can't be used to show notability.
• Raiden's Realm - Steve Lake appears to be a known entity within the Linux community. Perhaps Raiden's Realm could be checked with WP:VG/RS, but I'd be prepared to accept this.
• Tech Source From Bohol - Just seems to be a self-published source. Marasmusine (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reloaded Abandonia - awaiting judgement on WP:VG/RS. I can't see any information about the editorial process at this site, or further information about "DeathDude", I need the opinion of the guys at VG/RS.
• Linux.com - Major site, has editorial oversight, no problems with this. However, the article can barely be called a review. It's an overview of the game and how to start it up. The only critical commentry is in the very last sentence. As a source, this is more useful for the Gameplay section.

There are two more sources to look at but I'll have to do this later. Marasmusine (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the editorial process of both Gamespot and That Videogame Blog. However, it's a shame that none of these sources provide anything resembling a professionally written critical review. Still, there might be enough to provide some more specific statements for this section.

As for the screenshots, I try to go by WP:Images#Image choice and placement. "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The videogame guidelines also suggest "a couple" of screenshots, but not to go overboard. So, rather than a seperate gallery, I would suggest one image for the infobox, and another to illustrate the Gameplay section. Marasmusine (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

Hi. Screenshots can be found in Commons:Category:CodeRED: Alien Arena. The PD notice is hard to find but check http://red.planetarena.org/media.html#tag1 and read the first line (orange) "Alien Arena Screenshots released into Public Domain". Feel free to upload more to Commons but make sure to add {{licensereview}} so that admins will check and review the files. I think most of the old screenshots was ok too but they are now gone and now hard to review. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)