*First-person shooter (disambiguation), I question whether this page is necessary; I think Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter should be a {{main}} in the section on multiplayer (even if it's not a great article, one hopes it will improve), and First-person shooter engine is already linked the FPS article. That only leaves the X-files episode - perhaps this needs to be a note in this article, 'For the X-files episode, see' etc. What do you think?
I removed the disambiguation note. I'm not sure if the X-files episode link is necessary or not; I'm happy to go with whatever you think is best.
*I'm concerned that the ref tags don't use cite; whilst maybe not essential for GA, it makes it difficult to check they're consistent, not duplicated, and contain all info needed.
I'm not sure, but I guess you mean citation templates? In which case, it's not necessary: the MOS states: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE).
Not needed Yes, as I said, not essential. As long as all the refs have all the necessary info, and they're all consistent. I haven't got around to checking them yet; I will. Personally, I find it much easier to use cite tags; I know that some others don't like them though. Have you ever tried them? -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I just find them cumbersome to copy/paste, as well as all the additional code; I prefer to type citations out.
*3D links to a disambig page; please choose the right link. Also, '3D' and '3D computer graphics' are linked several times in the article - please check
Nope, all the genre articles use the navbox in place of an infobox. There's not really many objective facts that could go in an infobox, although if you have any ideas, please do direct them to WP:VG :)
*I don't see the 'doom' image as 'fair use' - I think we could use an image from an opensource game instead.
It is fair-use IMO, not least because there's commentary on Doom in the article. All our genre articles have fair use images including our FA 4X and GAs ([[e.g. Shoot 'em up]].
This is a debatable point; fair use is a tricky subject. The bit of the licence that concerns me is, "presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise". How about using , and then there's no problems? -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*Doom has 3 wikilinks (plus 1 on the pic); I would remove them myself, but from the context you might want to reconsider the wording so that the link can be in the most relevent place
*Leed, "First-person shooter (abbreviated FPS) is " - singular or plural? "A FPS is" or "FPSs are"?
I don't see the issue here? "FPS (is)" would be the genre as a whole, or a single game in the genre. "FPSs (are)" would be multiple games within the genre. This should be obvious no?
A banana is yellow; bananas are yellow.
Currently, it says "FPS is a video game genre" = Banana is a fruit.
I think it should be "FPS are video game genres..." or "A FPS is a video game genre..." - but they both sound a bit odd, don't they?
If we go on the thing itself, then it's like "A banana is a type of fruit", or Bananas are a type of fruit" - so that would be, "An FPS is a genre of video game..." or "FPS are genres...".
:::It can't be "FPSs are genres" as that doesn't make sense. It's one genre so it's singular. If we're talking individual games, it would "one FPS", "two FPSs". Like "1 first person shooter game", "2 first person shooter games". "First person shooter" as the title of the article is about the genre and the term is also used to describe individual games in the genre. Same with most fiction genres (horror; horror film etc). Also I'm pretty sure "an FPS" would wrong; it should be "a FPS", even though it sounds weird out loud. Colloquially we'd say "an FPS" but in writing it's "a FPS". I'll check through sources in a bit. Elsewhere in the article FPS isn't used, anyway.
done -- Chzz ► 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I've changed it slightly, so the start is just "First-person shooter (FPS) is a video game genre"... (Out of interest, I had to learn about 'a' and 'an' once, to teach English. The rule is, of course, it's 'an' if the word starts with a vowel BUT it's done on the phoenetic, the sound, so it's "An M.P." (an em-pee) but "a unicorn" (a yu-nicorn). Wierd eh? Try teaching that to a class full of Japanese :-)Reply
*Leed, 'genre' used far too many times
Haha, you're right. I modified it, hard to know what other words to use but it should be ok now, see what you think.
OK for now, you've certainly removed the worst of it. I'll look at it again later - the above comment wasn't entirely a joke; I think it's best to look at the leed when the rest is done; after all, it's a summary of the rest. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*Leed, "(Half-Life 2, released in 2004), is perhaps the genre's highest point" 5 references in one place? Even with the refs, this looks a bit like OR - it's a very contentious idea, and I don't see how we can know that the highest point has been achieved - I'm sure some very advanced FPS will appear in the future
I modified it to "one of the genre's highest points to date". The gamasutra article puts it at number 1 in its list; it's the highest FPS in the IGN top 100; the other three sources call it one of the greatest shooters/games of all time so I'm confident this statement is supported.
I'm happy with "one of..." - but I still wonder if all the refs are necessary?
*"GoldenEye 007 was the first landmark first person shooter for home consoles, with the Halo series becoming the most popular and critically acclaimed" - unreferenced assertions; there were plenty of FPS for consoles before Goldeneye, and as to what constitutes 'landmark' is a matter of opinion
This is a duplicate of a statement in the main body (I can add the citations to the lead also if you want). The UGO source calls it a "landmark" explicitly. The gamasutra source says: "This was the first big console FPS that truly got it right", "Goldeneye was the first viable and well done console FPS [...] This game started the influx of console-based shooters we see nowadays" and "Goldeneye was the first great success of a FPS on a console" (page 7). The 1UP interview also says: "it also defined the first-person shooter for consoles". Again I'm confident this is a well supported statement, although we could add "is considered" or "critics have said" or whatever.
Done That's fine, if it's ref'd further on; I advocate as few refs as poss in the leed; as I said, I've not had a chance to review all the refs yet. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*Several wikilinks are redirects, such as video game genre and home console - please check throughout the article
I've checked and I'm pretty sure everything redirects to where it should.
'Video game genre' is still a redirect to video game genreS. Please check again; I'll check them all later on in the review process.-- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
:::It's meant to redirect there. That article covers the general notion of a "video game genre" as well as having brief summaries of all the different ones.::::What I mean is, the link is [[video game genre]], which is a redirect to video game genres - yes, it's an automatic redirect, but it's better to avoid them with either [[video game genres|video game genre]] or by using the WP:PIPETRICK ([[video game genre]]s). See what I mean? -- Chzz ► 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC):::::Ok, fixed now. bridies (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Consider a merger of the article First person (video games), which doesn't seem to cover anything except FPS
The state of that article isn't this article's problem. As it happens, first person is used in RPGs, flight sims and at least one platformer; although it probably is woefully written, like all the game design articles.
True; unfortunately, you've pretty much got to link to that article. It might be worth working on that one a little, to add support to this one.-- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*"From the genre's inception, advanced design elements such as 3D graphics have been utilized" - surely a FPS would have to use 3D, by definition? Perhaps the point here is to convey the relationship between FPS development and the development of more advanced graphics cards ? In which case that needs to be developed elsewhere in the article:*It means specific things like ray casting and then polygons; this is covered in the article. Maybe we should specifically mention those things in the lead.:As above, lets review that later. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Maybe improved with, "From the genre's inception, advanced 3d graphics elements have challenged hardware development, and from the release of Doom onward, multiplayer gaming has been integral." -- Chzz ► 01:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*"In the new millennium, the first person shooter is one of the most popular and fastest growing video game genres." - unreferenced
Again it's referenced in the main body (right at the bottom). Again we can put the citations in the lead if you feel the need.
*"Wolfenstein 3D, released in 1992. the year before Doom, is generally credited with inventing the genre." - 'generally' is a bit of a weasel term, and this 'fact' appears unreferenced*:Again this is referenced in the main body. I am confident this is the mainstream viewpoint and is adequately sourced. I'm pretty confident any source that talks about the inventions of the genre will cite Wolfenstein and I can add more citations if need be. Even the source I used which disagrees with that viewpoint states it's a "common mis-conception" and concedes that Wolfenstein popularised the modern template.::It's fair to say Wolf popularised the genre, but not invented. See refs to older games later. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::It is fair to say that Wolfenstein 3D is generally credited with inventing the genre. Our policy is verifiability not truth, so we go with what commentators say. Although the book you linked talks about Battlezone as part of a "new genre" of "first person shooters", I would contend this a minority viewpoint. The Gamasutra source says "Wolfenstein 3D - because it was the first,"; the Gamespot article on Dom says "it was another id game, Wolfenstein 3D, that in 1992 introduced gamers to the concept of the first-person shooter"; the UGO source says "I and many others feel the modern day shooter took it's first full steps in 1992 with Id Software's Wolfenstein 3D." I think going through more sources will only reflect this trend: e.g. [1] says "Wolfenstein 3D is the granddaddy of all first-person shooters". Also bear in mind Battlezone is a tank game with vector graphics and doesn't really resemble Wolfenstein and subsequent games at all, as well as the fact the term "first person shooter" didn't emerge until some time later. Battlezone may merit a mention but the assertion that critics generally consider Wolfenstein 3D to have invented the genre proper is well supported.::::I'm happy with the wording as it stands, because it's clear that it's the opinion of critics. I do think that battlezone should get a mention, and I think if the evolution of the game is going to be developed with that and other references as we've discussed, we'll see how it pans out because wording is likely to change. I think the word I just used, 'evolution', sums it up well. It's impossible to define a game as being THE first, because it was a slow process of evolution, and also as you say because the term came out years later. As the topic is FPS, I think as full a discussion of this evolutionary process is key to the article, so I hope we can nail it. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*"Like all shooter games, first person shooters involve "an avatar," - I disagree that all shooter games have an avatar. E.g. Star Wars (1983 video game).:*It actually wasn't me that added the statement but it is sourced and unless I am much mistaken "avatar" just means protagonist/player character and surely every shooter has one of those. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing it since I haven't seen the source but others might not like us removing cited material they added in good faith.
If it's wrong, it has to go. I think it's wrong, because - without looking it up and checking - to me, an avatar in a vid game is a representation of your self, within the gamin environment. That star-wars game has no such representation. Neither do other shooty games, like Missile Command, for e.g. - there is no 'player character' in that. Or those skeet-shoot type games. I'm sure there's other examples...I think this has to be changed.-- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::I disagree. The term "avatar" is in quotation marks straight from the source and surely just represents you within the game. If a game lets you pretend to be Luke Skywalker so be it. It's a direct quotation from a reliable source, again "verifiability not truth". At most I'd support changing it to player character. A space-ship or such is still an avatar/character as it must have someone to fly it or otherwise be sentient.:::I've changed things there slightly, removing the quotes and wikilinking. I'm still not sure about this 'all shooters have an avatar' thing; I see that as a feature of some games, not all; the wiki article says "user's representation of himself", and there is no such representation in star wars (arcade game). Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down by this, it's not that important; there's other stuff to be developed and we could spend far too long arguing one line which eventually we zap anyway! -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*"generally considered superior" - weasel; even though referenced, too contentious - other refs would support the opposite view (easily):*Well, I'd like to see those sources because again I would think that's the pre-eminent view.::If you insist, I'll find some - but easy enough; look at console magazines. Gamers always argue that their own platform is best. Anyway, this needs a rewrite, as the below point...*"based around two analog sticks" - not always, by any means. Lots of non-analog consoles have FPS; lots don't use 2 sticks, lots you cannot sidestep/aim:*Yeah, the source is a recent one so perhaps it should be clarified to "recent games" or what have you.::It's probably worth expanding, to discuss the controls and development of the genre. I don't have refs, but from personal knowledge, the reason Doom took off on PC's was partly because of the control system of keyboard and mouse. You could discuss specialised gaming pads designed for FPS; FPS are responsible for consoles needing lots of extra buttons...I think there's probably more to be said in this section, so the exact wording of that is probably irrelevent, if it's going to be changed anyway. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::I noticed that in the 3ps article, it says "one 2D input (usually the left joystick or set of keys) is used to make the player character move, and another (the right stick or mouse) is used to aim and turn." - I do think some similar, more full explanation of types of controls typical to this genre should go in; maybe a mention of gamepads designed for fps too, and a mention of weapon selection - I do think the success on PCs was, to an extent, down to keyboards allowing complex weapon selection and other things, and that that has influenced portability to consoles. Whether we can source info on this is another matter, but worth noting for future development of the article.Reply
*"generally focus on action gameplay, with fast-paced and bloody firefights." - weasel, unreferenced.
I believe the UGO source covers it; I guess I could add more. I mean it calls Quake a "breakneck gorefest", for example, and there's surely loads more like that. We could change "generally" to "may" or "sometimes" if that's what you mean.
*"In addition to shooting, melee combat..." - this appears to follow on from the section on tactical shooters, and therefore apply just to them, but I think it's a separate point; maybe it should be in a separate paragraph. Perhaps mention of chainsaws could go here; also isn't it common that hand weapons are a fall-back when you run out of ammo?
rearranged.
Done -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Note for later, I think some explanation regarding collecting weapons and ammo, and the 'fallback' of hand weapons, might need elaborationReply
*"Many first-person shooters have highly realistic models of real weapons, including their rate of fire, size of ammunition, and accuracy." - really? I've yet to see a rail gun or plasma weapon in real life! Where can I buy a BFG9000?:*This is another statement I didn't add. However, it says "many", not "all" or "most". Call of Duty? Battlefield? Again, I believe this statement if verifiable by other sources if you feel the current one doesn't cover it.::I'd rather it said 'Some' - I would guess that there's more unrealistic weapons than realistic ones. And even the so-called realistic ones are not really, in terms of reload/fire rate, lack of kickback, etc etc. I could live with 'Some'. Perhaps this needs a bit more elaboration, too, about the 'subsubgenre' of realistic ones. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::Changed to "some". The sub-genre would be "tactical shooter", which is covered in the section below. We could mention it there but it's probably best not to tie it down to tactical shooters if the source doesn't explicitly say so. There's probably at least some shooters with comparatively realistic weapons but with gung-ho gameplay.Reply
*"However, they may allow players to carry many of them at the same time" - avoid starting a sentence with 'However'. Why 'may'? Are there games where you can't?:*Again not my writing :) However, I think the next sentence covers that, although maybe it's a bit verbose/ambiguous.::Yes; perhaps the whole bit about realism can be reworked? -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I clarified the prose a little; I would say it's valid info otherwise.
*Mention of health, but no discussion of armour/shield:*Essentially the same thing IMO, for the purposes of a broad overview.::Yes, but we're into the detail now. I'd say that armor/shields are fairly fundamental to the genre? -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::I still don't see it. They just allow you to take more damage and are surely thus covered by healths and power-ups. Getting into the semantics seems much like going into the details of various power ups (see below).Reply
*Also no discussion of powerups such as quad-damage, invisibility, etc etc:*Again too much detail IMO, at least for GA criteria, although I guess it could be added. The only time I've seen a general source go into FPS power-ups was that berserk thing in Doom, as a bit of a novelty. Shoot 'em up (GA) doesn't have very much on power-ups.::WP:OTHERSTUFF; I think a comprehensive article on FPS needs some mention of all typical elements, and I think power-ups are such a typical component, they need coverage - perhaps giving examples, e.g. quad-damage, invis, whatever. This might go elsewhere in the article. -- Chzz ► 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::OTHERSTUFF is not applicable; it only applies to Articles for Deletion discussions. On the contrary other good articles written a certain way indicates consensus. Only featured articles need be "comprehensive", not good articles. In any case I still don't think it's appropriate. Going into the details of various power-ups is badly pushing WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE at the best of times, never mind in a broad overview of a whole genre. WP:MOSFICT states that fictional works (e.g. video games) must be written about from a real world perspective; in turn, the most a reader needs to know about gameplay is a general idea of how FPSs work. Therefore I think the most we should write is that power-ups exist and that they make the character more powerful. I see I've only mentioned health and ammo, so I'll see about adding a general mention of power-ups.::::See how it goes. What I meant by 'otherstuff' was just that, because another GA does/doesn't do something, does not mean this one should/shouldn't. Anyway - just trying to make the article better. I do reckon it would be possible to have a bit more mention of fairly common features of the genre, ie armour and power-ups, although there is some mention of them now. See how it goes. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*Level design - "Half-Life's technique of a continuous narrative" - I don't think they invented the idea?
the statement is "a continuous narrative in which the game never leaves the first person perspective of the protagonist", which is covered and sourced elsewhere in the article, if not there.
I wouldn't have thought so. We could use "player character" or something but I prefer "protagonist" as it's a more generally understood term.
Is it? OK; I haven't come across it quite so often. But, anyway, I still disagree because the statement indicates that the technique of continuous narrative 'belongs' to half-life, if you see what I mean, rather than HL just being an example of that technique, which is widely employed in other genres. Maybe come back to this when I'm looking through the prose. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I removed the reference to Half-Life. Protagonist is used in all fiction whereas "player character" is specific to gaming. I don't doubt many gamers would be more familiar with player character but an encyclopaedia should be written for a broad general readership.
"destroyable" - I don't think that's an English word?
My spellchecker doesn't have a problem with it :) Do you have a dictionary to hand?
::Well, google didn't know it. Merriam-WebsterUnabridged has it; maybe it's an Americanism? Sounds like something Bush would say. Oh - you changed it anyway, so never mind -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::I actually don't think it was me that changed it but then I was quite tired last night... In any case I agree with the change. Destructible was the word I originally wanted to use but my spellchecker didn't like it at the time; seems fine now.Reply
*I think 'sandbox' may not be the most common term for non-linear gameplay; perhaps write it out in full:*That's the term used in the source. If I'm not mistaken "sandbox" is but one term in the wider concept of non-linear gameplay and again if the other article doesn't cover it that is not this articles problem. However, it might be appropriate to clarify it here.::I definitely think it needs clarification, because the term 'sandbox' is also often used in gaming to mean a mode where you can play around with features etc, like in SIM games, where you can create a landscape. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC):::I clarified it.Reply
*"taking place on specialized levels termed "maps." - maps are not only used for multiplayer, and the term is not universal, so needs clarification. For example, all levels in DOOM are called maps:*Really? Well as far as I'm aware multiplayer levels are generally called maps and I think that should be verifiable by further sources if need be. How would you suggest going about "clarification"?::Without references - ie from my own knowledge - I think the term 'maps' became common from DOOM wad files, but the term just refers to the layout of the level, and isn't specific to multiplayer. Of course, people designed maps that were appropriate and suited to multi-player games, but people also designed single player maps. I think customisation (maps and other areas) will need coverage somewhere in the article, see later comments -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)::Need to check up on it, then. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that maps are just the files that the game uses to store the data on the level; because multiplayer games often involve modified levels, the map files are distributed in relation to multiplayer gaming. However, I remember DOOM, for example, had a load of WAD files, each of which was known as a map - and you could download new ones to replace them, both for new single player setups (like Aliens DOOM), and for multi. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC):::I just removed "termed maps", if we can explain multiplayer games take place on specialised levels we surely don't need the extra jargon anyway. bridies (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm going to stop my line-by-line critique there, because I feel there are already a lot of things to address.
Edit 13 March 2009 I'm not going to go through and strike out the remainder of the initial comments, because they're too general. Instead, I've noted the outstanding issues, and will detail them in a section called "13 March" - the remainder of this discussion, until that new section, is for archive -- Chzz ► 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
My overall concern is that the article is too opinionated, narrow in viewpoint/focused on certain games and the terminology used in those games.
The article should encompass a number of broader aspects to the genre, such as;
More on level design, cheat codes, etymology (Oxford English dictionary would say where/when the term was first used), directional audio, shareware (role in the popularity and development), other pre-doom games such as Mazogs on ZX-81, controversy (age restrictions, gore, influence on violent society, etc), future developments (eg VR headsets), platforms (ie consoles, the fact that FPS are popular on PCs using keyboard to allow selection of many weapons and options etc), common elements (e.g. coloured keys), competitions, appearances in popular culture (films, tv), landscape issues (water/swimming etc, snow, footprints, acid pools, etc), secret levels/switches, rocket jumping, language that has developed from the genre such as "frag", "respawn", "!!!111eleven", "gg", etc etc
More on level design I might agree with. Any suggestions?
I'll think about it. The thing is, there were 2 reasons that DOOM took off as much as it did. (And this is totally POV, but that doesn't mean it's not right, just means we have to source refs!) - (1) Shareware, hence it spread like wildfire, and (2) Hackable, so people could make their own add-ons. I know that's a bit specific to DOOM, but it's also why the genre took hold and grew exponentially, so I think it needs at least a cursory mention in this article. Something to research. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Shareware is mentioned in the Doom section, although it may be appropriate to state it was one reason for its popularity. Sources also mention Doom mods, although Quake gets more credit in that respect.
I disagree regarding cheat codes, again too much detail. I don't think there's a precedent for discussing cheat codes in our good genre articles. Unless perhaps your talking about cheat programs (aimbots, wallhacks and such); I might agree with that.
No, I'm talking about cheat codes; a feature of this genre. You can even get geek T-shirts with IDDQD or IDSPISPOPD written on them, and every geek of a certain age (ahem) knows what they mean. Cheats were important to DOOM, and thus to its proginy; it really is (or at least was) a feature of FPS. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think that just shows it's pretty esoteric... If you can find sources saying cheat codes are/were an important feature of FPSs then ok, but otherwise I'm still sceptical.
What's Mazogs? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article (or perhaps I'm being clueless here). I find publications don't talk about pre-Doom games much, care to point me to some sources?
Sorry, I made a mistake, as Mazogs was not FPS. (I'm amazed WP doesn't have an article on it though!) It was a ZX81 game. However, the game I was trying to think of is 3D Monster Maze - which is totally relevent, and appears to be the 1st FPS for home computers. That's got to go in, somewhere. Maybe with a pic, maybe in the 'history' bit (which I hope can be expanded). I'll try and remember a few more. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Monster Maze isn't a shooter, it just has a first person viewpoint.
VR headsets? Isn't that a dead 90s fad? :) I might agree some more current info might be in order; again, any specifics?
Heh, yeah, maybe. But research into future developments should go in somewhere. It'd be interesting, apart from anything else. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
The only thing I can think of that gets much coverage is MMOFPS, one or two have been around for a while now but they haven't really taken off and its still very much a thing for the future. Bear in mind Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
True; I'm not talking about any OR future stuff; just, if we could find out about the latest developments, it might round off the article. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I agree the platform thing isn't adequately covered. Since Goldeneye and especially Halo they have been as much the domain of consoles as PCs and this should be covered, I think. Perhaps the fact all the big games pre-Goldeneye were PC should be further clarified but there is a section about the first console FPS games.
Coloured keys, footprints etc again sounds like unneeded detail. Swimming I could perhaps agree with.
Swimming is definitely a common feature in the genre. Mention of terrain in general could be made, 'coz most games have slow-moving bits, some variant on acid, etc etc. I'm beginning to think that we might need a section called 'typical features' or something like that.-- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
"In popular culture" is often synonymous with "trivia". Any specific, particularly notable examples you think should be covered in the history section?
Haven't thought about it yet; the only thing that springs to mind is DOOM the movie; I expect there are lots of mentions in TV and films; something to google up on, but yes, need to avoid 'trivia'. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Doom film probably does warrant a mention, even if it was critically panned.
We have "deathmatch"... "respawn" might be verifiable at a push. I doubt anything worthwhile can be verified about the other terms and I'm not convinced FPS is even the relevant article; they all might just as easily be used in other online games. "frag" is from the Vietnam War.
I'm sure I read somewhere, once, about the origins of some phrases from online games. Oh - what was that meme about that kid running into that room, er...LEROY JENKINS! Does WoW count as FPS? I guess so. See Leeroy Jenkins. I dunno about that, if it's relevent enough. I think it'd be worth a bit of a dig about some phrases and sayings that originated from the genre, though. -- Chzz ► 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough; we'll see if there's anything to dig up later.
I doubt it is known when the term was first used. Like most genre definitions it probably came into use gradually. In this sense the article covers it, stating they were termed "Doom clones"; this term was subsequently replaced by "first person shooter". This info comes from Britannica's article and if they can't pin down an exact time-frame I don't see that we should have to. As I say I'm confident any exact instance of it first being coined is unverifiable, although I'm willing to be proved wrong. bridies (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I hope that you will find this review helpful - it might sound unduly critical, and that is not my intention, I am only trying to improve the article and have therefore spent my time in analysing it.
(Re above, I'm not saying ALL these things are essential for GA; just ideas for improving the article in general, which I think is more important than getting a GA status) -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Carrying on my read-through from 'History'...
Suggest delete the subheading "Doom and other early first person shooters", because DOOM was by no means the first, etc, so do history in a linear way and make a story of it.
*OK, I'm going back on myself now, but I think 'Maze way' and 'Spasism' probably SHOULD have wikilinks here; multi links are allowed in different sections, and it is pretty key to the history.
"though it was not the first shooter game to feature a first person..." not needed; we've just said there were at least 2 before. (And we're prob gonna add more, ie 3D monster maze etc.)
"Wolfenstein 3D used 3D ray casting " can we delete '3D', 'coz you can't really have 2D ray-casting, can you?
We could delete it; I just thought it was good to clarify it as it won't be obvious to the general reader.
Might be good to discuss Wolf a bit more, because it did feature a number of, err, features that stuck with FPS for a long time.
*"attempted to sue id," I think write 'id software' in full, to clarify. (It's the lower-case 'id' thing; looks a bit odd; I know that's their way)
re, controversy, I'm pretty sure that FPSs were involved in the first warning labels on games; something else that needs researching.
Which labels, the ELSPA things? As the GameSpot "History of Video Game Controversy" notes it was Mortal Kombat that was mainly responsible for those and Doom/Wolfenstein weren't mentioned at the various hearings. You may be talking about something else though.
Mortal Kombat most definitely was the game that sparked the video game violence debate - Doom certainly contributed to it though. From what I remember, the ESRB was created as a direct response to Mortal Kombat. bob rulz (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Just realised) we haven't mentioned about difficult levels?
meaning?
Difficulty settings, easy medium, hard etc. I suppose that's not that unique to the genre; I was thinking of DOOM, which had something like 'don't hurt me', 'bring it on' and stuff. Might not be specific enough to the genre. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Infact, maybe we need a mention of typical controls, like strafe etc (I know these aren't history, but I just thought of them and wanted to make a note)
Side-stepping? Aleady mentioned, I think.
Yep, side-step is in there somewhere (it was called 'strafe mode' in DOOM); again, if we end up making the controls bit bigger, it could go there. -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
And 'map view' - we haven't mentioned that
What's "map view"?
I mean, when you display the map on the screen - usually overlayed, to see where you are. I'm thinking of DOOM and clones, but I think most fps have some kind of mapping system during the gameplay? Lots feature a compass, too. Just something else that might help give typical features of the genre. I mean like this (maybe not free) image, but it was also possible to 'overlay' it, you know what I mean? -- Chzz ► 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Re. Duke Nukem 3D, maybe a bit more about this. The fact that it was about 100 years overdue. And I think it might have been the first where you could look in the mirror and see yourself. Which reminds me, DOOM 2 took forever to be released, too. Maybe delays in game release became a bit of a feature of the genre?
There is some things in sources which mention the more believable in-game world. Delays happen in all sorts of games so I'm not sure it's a particular feature of FPS.
Major game delays have become such a common, almost expected, part of gaming that I don't think it's even worth mentioning in this article. bob rulz (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think - not sure - that Unreal featured headshots/sniping before 007.
The source mentioned it prominently so I covered it also. Perhaps it inappropriately implies it was the first.
There was a WWII based team game around that time...err...forgot the name. I'll remember later.
Catacomb 3-D is a role-playing game not FPS. It seems like it sort of prototyped a lot of the technology, however I've looked into it and can't really find any sources that care about it in the context of FPS's development.
Ditto with Midi-Maze.
I don't see how Pathways into Darkness is relevant. Again it seems to be more of an adventure/RPG than FPS and it was out after Wolfenstein 3D and possibly also Doom.
Same with Rise of the Triad. It was out 94/95 and seems to just be another Doom clone. It's from Apogee (published Wolfenstein), but I've already covered that their post-Wolfenstein stuff was eclipsed by Doom.
I just read through this, and there's one thing I think should be added - more info on the recent history of the genre. There's plenty on the mid-to-late 90s/turn of the century, but there's almost nothing on games released after about 2001. This is important too. bob rulz (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I can definitely help out, but references will probably be harder to come by than the earlier games. It shouldn't be a problem though. bob rulz (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll add some more recent games. However I should point out that Halo and Halo 2 are covered prominently and they were the dominant console games until at least very recently. Half-Life, more specifically Counterstrike, is still the most played PC game. bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps 'History' should be the first section, for a more logical progression to the article
I don't really have an opinion either way. The various genre articles use a mixture of both formats, although few are rated at a decent standard. 4X, the only FA, uses this format. bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
No mention of Tomb raider - more puzzle based, but it is an FPS
Motion sickness - some people can't play these type of games; maybe also epilepsy warnings etc
In 'combat', I don't really understand this sentence; "Thus, the standards of realism in first-person shooters vary between design elements."
It means some elements of a particular game might be more realistic than others. So for example, a game might have crazy sci-fi weapons, but feature a realistic one-shot-kill system. The example in the article is that a game might have realistic weaponry, but allow the player to carry an unrealistic amount of them around. To be honest I don't see the issue, but feel free to tweak the prose. bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Prose needs some work to avoid so much repetition of FPS and genre, and to improve flow. I'll do what I can myself; might be worth seeking a copyedit, but probabbly better to do that after we've done some more of the editing discussed.
"causing problems for companies whose networks were used to play the game" - needs a reference
It's covered by the UGO source, amongst the three citations at the end of that section: "With millions of downloads that got passed from user to user it became the most widely used piece of software not only in many homes, but much to Id's delight and employer's chagrin, workplace networks." bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
"Descent, (released by Parallax Software in 1995) a game in which the player pilots a spacecraft around caves and factory ducts, was the first truly three dimensional first person shooter. " - it wasn't the first 'truly 3D'; it was the first to allow free movement throughout all 3 dimensions. Maybe some such wording could be used; perhaps explain something about the perspective - no defined 'up and down', as such - but the para does go on to say '6 degrees of freedom'.
"first truly 3d FPS" are the exact words used by the source. I actually think it's referring to polygons rather than 6DOF but it's not quite explicitly clear. bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Re. Quake "featured multiple match types still found in first person shooter games today" - this may need elaboration, ie capture the flag, etc
"The first passable console first person shooters " - still awaiting reference
Again it's covered by the UGO source, at the end of the paragraph: "The introduction of the Playstation in 1995 brought the first successful FPSs to consoles. Previous attempts were clunky at best." It then goes on to be quite disparaging to those "successful" FPSs. bridies (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
"Deus Ex, released by Ion Storm in 2000, featured a levelling system " - what does it mean by levelling system? Experience points and level-up? Need clarification
I expanded the history section quite a bit. The pre-Wolfenstein games that evolved the first person viewpoint as well as ray casting, texture mapping etc are now covered. I've added more recent games covering expanded multiplayer capabilities and sandbox levels, as well as one or two very big titles (Doom 3, Bioshock...). The design section looks a rather bare now, I'll get to expanding that in a bit. bridies (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding some recent history. More could definitely still be done though. I forgot about this article until recently - I'll go about finding references to edit with. bob rulz (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm concerned about the image and userbox at the top. It looks a bit 'busy'; perhaps this needs thought about eh infobox - maybe the image should be in it, or maybe the image of DOOM should be used elsewhere in the article? I really like the 3 pics in history, which clearly demonstrate the evolution of the genre. I think the DOOM (or freedoom) pic should be prominent, because it's a good idea, but I think it gets mixed in with the infobox - I feel maybe it should be instead of the icon (asteroids) ?
I don't really have an opinion, I just copied the 4X FA format as it seemed fine to me. The various infoboxes used in the genre article were made by an editor at WP:VG; I don't really know how they work. bridies (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I'm no expert either, but I'll take a look. How would you feel about an infobox that didn't have the cartoon-logo but had the doom image inside instead? Might be more similar to other article infoboxes? I don't know of others that have a 'logo' for the catagory. I know someone who knows about such things and will seek advice.
It's not an infobox as such. It's basically the same as the navigation template that goes at the bottom of each article, only we made a box out of it to make up for the lack of a proper infobox. The spaceship denotes "action video games" rather than first person shooter. All the action game related articles (genres, nomenclature etc) have this particular box; strategy genre articles have one with a chess piece, RPGs have swords and dice etc. I'm not opposed to changing things up, but doing so would have wider implications for numerous other articles. Therefore I think any discussion should probably take place on the WP:VG talk page first. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I understand. I've been looking into it. I think I will raise it on WP:VG. It might be fairly easy to change it to have an optional image, and either display it if one is specified or stay the way it is - that might be a way to move forward quickly on it (without worrying about the effect on lots of articles). I'll continue to investigate the issue. What are your general thoughts - initially, I thought that it should be more infobox-like, i.e. to state facts about the genre - but I'm not sure what could go into it. The first game/date? (tricky) - it may be that there aren't a useful list of facts for articles such as this, and as someone pointed out to me, there are featured articles with an infobox that navigates to other pages. Canadian_charter_of_rights_and_freedoms is an example. So perhaps the best thing is that - to get it so the image can be put in instead of the logo (which doesn't really add any info to the article). I'd welcome your thoughts. -- Chzz ► 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
*I think "In the new millennium, the first person shooter is one of the most popular and fastest growing video game genres" should have a ref on the end, because it's such a strong assertion - even if it is ref'd elsewhere. Done, thanks -- Chzz ► 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Would it be possible to add a bit more terminology - we have 'deathmatch', but what about frag, pwned, camping, GG, respawn" EDIT: "gibs" -- Chzz ► 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
With the possible exception of "gibs", those terms are used in all manner of online games so I'm not convinced this is the proper article for them. Fragging goes back to the Vietnam War. The only thing I feel might warrant a mention is the whole instagib thing in Quake etc. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Re, Doom film - is it worth a mention of Doom novels?
Not sure really. I mentioned the Doom film because it was covered prominently and featured a section in "FPS mode". I'm not opposed to a mention that doom was novelised but I don't feel it's especially necessary. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
end of level bosses?
I don't see that they need a mention as they're hardly a hallmark of the genre, unlike say shoot 'em up. The only time I've seen a boss mentioned in a source is the robot-Hitler from Wolfenstein. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, probably best left out. It was major in DOOM, but we don't want the article to feature too heavily on that one game, and I guess plenty of FPS these days don't really have specific level bosses - so probably not needed, on reflection. -- Chzz ► 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about the section headings, for several reasons;
Sometimes, the history section skips around in time, going forwards and then backwards; it would be better if it was all in sequence.
Particularly, 'Deus Ex' (2000) is in the 1996-98 section (as is counterstrike(2004)).
The date in the last heading is wrong; it should be 2000 not 1999, I've fixed it now. Counterstrike was released in 1999; it was the Source version which was released in 2004. It's essentially the same game with a graphical overhaul. I moved Deus Ex to the 2000s section. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Although I've worked a lot on the prose, there's still too many repeats of certain words/phrases, such as "feature(d), acclaim(ed), the game, genre, protagonist, commentators".
I think they are repeated through necessity. In any case, GA prose need only be "clear" and grammatically correct, not "professional" or "outstanding" or whatever the FA criterion is. bridies (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree. I'm noting everything I see, not only for GA review purposes but also to suggest further development of the article.
As regards GA, I agree it's either up to the standard or very close. I have some more checks to do, mostly as to whether the references do back up the facts asserted. I will try to do as soon as possible. Thanks, -- Chzz ► 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
Reads well now. Scope for future improvement to prose, but points are clear, spelling and grammar checked.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
Checked and edited for MOS; good clear lede, logical layout, jargon only where appropriate and explained, no peacock words etc. No lists.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
Refs all check out; citations include sufficient details
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
Well referenced with RS. Balanced and neutral, multiple sources
(c) it contains no original research.
Does not contain OR
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
History and development of genre covered; appropriate depth and weight to games throughout development
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Good level of detail
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Quoted non-neutral phrases used appropriately
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Check; no edit-warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
All images have justification for use, and are needed to cover the subject; free licenced images used where possible
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
