Talk:Blacklight: Retribution

Why?

Can anyone give me an explanation as to why the shunned away from consoles? I mean, theres ALOT of money in multi-platform games, so why WOULD they want to pull a move like this?

signed- ANON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.236.175 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because generally F2P games don't work as well on consoles, due to the more complicated things needed for micro transactions etc 217.129.84.2 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the microtransactions would just kill it for console pc gamers are used to them but not so much as strict console gamers. Another problem is that from PC to console you literally have to rework the entire mechanics for it since your going from the PC keyboard and mouse to the control and you would have to redo all of the graphics due to the fact you have to meet the minimum requirements for the console (though thats not as much an issue now) RogueDzro (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion?

"Blacklight: Retribution models itself after Call of Duty's multiplayer components and borrows certain gameplay elements from Crysis and F.E.A.R."

If this is legit, howsabout a citation? --76.31.24.249 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy pasted from ads?

"Weapon customization has much detail and can have several different receivers, ranging from assault rifles to shotguns, the player can customize each receiver to the max" That doesn't sound very encyclopediaish. 217.129.84.2 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

community research is peer reviewed research. it is not OR. these are well known facts, and not grievances. 64.229.139.11 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In case your IP changes, here's a copy of the message I left on your talk page:

Sorry, but that edit is wrong for a number of reasons. First and foremost, forums are not reliable sources per our reliable sources guideline, which you should review; thus neither the Blacklist forums nor pastebin. Second, even if those were reliable sources, your action of taking and comparing the two is an act of original research, which is not allowed. The policy forbidding original research is about forbidding Wikipedia editors from doing interpretation/research; thus, your comment about game reviews is meaningless--our sources can and should be doing original research...but we cannot.

The only way that this information could be included is if an independent, reliable source discussed it. Examples of such a source would be Wired Magazine, possibly things like Rock Paper Scissors, and, if it's really a big deal, mainstream media (like happened with the SimCity 2013 problems). But if the information is only found on forums, blogs, and similar sources, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is going to slog through and test 50 bugs just to make this point.. i'm sorry.. not in a million years.. just won't happen, and this is the best information we have available. furthermore, simcity was a huge title, nobody evens knows who zombie/pwe/blacklight are... nobody is even going to bother writing an article. waste of time.

Basically, you are saying that FACTS don't belong in an encyclopedia simply because they have not been 'repeated' or 'regurgitated' by a media outlet.. that is a completely ridiculous policy.. but if you want, i'll just get some mag to post my bugs then and claim they tested them. that should be sufficient, nobody has to know if they actually tested them or not. sounds fair? no problem..

Also, i should remind you that there is no lack of bias, misreporting and downright lies in the media. Especially western media, yet they are all allowed as 'reliable sources'... seriously, the world is a joke. 64.229.139.11 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like our rules, but they are what the community has decided them to be. If you want to try to change them, they are open for discussion...but I can suggest that it's probably a waste of time. Otherwise, anyone could post anything that they found on any forum online into Wikipedia, and we'd have no way of measuring its veracity. And if you are correct, and no one's going to bother to write an article about this, well, then, it's not important enough for an encyclopedia. Remember, our purpose is not to collect every tidbit of information that's around, but rather to summarize only the most important things; the way we determine that is by looking at what reliable sources have said. Are they biased? Of course: every word ever written or spoken anywhere in any language at any time is biased. It's the nature of discourse. But that doesn't mean we can't set up standards and then enforce them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this is pretty important, but i understand your position. although there simply isn't a more reliable source. i've written to a few of them but i doubt they will bother wasting their time since there is nothing in it for them financially.

Furthermore, I don't know why you allow game review sites in the first place then since it's pretty well established that they receive various perks in the forms of early access, advertising revenue and extras from all the major publishers to promote their games. There's a conflict of interest.

Oh, I'll just leave this here in case someone wants to research it: [1] (bugs list). 64.229.139.11 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)