Talk:Team Fortress 2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikiproject videogame assessment

Hello, I'm posting in response to a request for the article to be assessed, hope this is of some help. I've kept the article at B grade, mid importance. The next step would be to get the article to good article standard and nominate it, or push beyond that into A-class standard and resubmit the article to the assessment dept. of the videogame project. Here's some suggestions:

• The development section would be better suited towards the end of the article, directly before reception.
• Referencing is good, nice work, there are a couple of areas missing some citations (like the Release subheading under development) though, citing these would help a future GA nomination.
• The Classes subheading under gameplay is further split into sub-subheadings for each character, it doesn't look right and could be condensed into a few paragraphs. Are the different classes officially known as 'defensive' or 'support'? If so, they could be grouped that way.
• "An Australian[30] character with low damage tolerance, the sniper wears a slouch hat of the Australian traditional military dress" Is it necessary to include descriptions of the characters' nationality/accent and clothing? I don't know either way, but if I wanted to know about how a FPS character handles what kind of hat they're wearing doesn't come into it.
• The bulleted list of maps is overkill, the opening and closing sentences are great, but the list doesn't offer anything other than names, which serve no purpose, and whether it's a CTF or control point map. Why would a reader unfamiliar with the game need to know that there's a level called Granary which is a control-point map? I'd suggest killing the list and merging the information about maps into the gameplay section.
• The graphics section as is doesn't have much of a role, is there more to come or is that 'it'? The style of graphics could be summed up in a sentence or two in gameplay, the development information could be covered under that heading.
• Reception is on the short side.
• Article lead is nearly there, beef up the second paragraph with relevant information and that should be good to go.
• Double-check for clarity, for instance "The heavy is physically the toughest class in the game". What does that actually mean? Can he sustain more damage? Inflict more damage physically? Do his firearms inflict more damage?

This a solid article with most of the materials in place for a GA attempt. A little expansion and some more cites, sorting the information into larger paragraphs and quashing lists, it's nip and tuck stuff. Well done for bringing it this far, I'd suggest carrying out some more work and resubmitting it for another look. Someoneanother 14:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick reply regarding accents and appearance: yes, a lot of the reviews have put forward that the personalities of each of the characters has added a heck of a lot to an area of gaming (multiplayer) where this usually isn't the case, so their inclusion seems notable. That stuff on the snipers hat is probably overkill, but the concept of the personalities and appearance is noteworthy. -- Sabre (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point well made, struck. Someoneanother 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

360 version added content, damage questions, and skywalking

The most important thing I want to bring up is the added content. There has already apparently been some official added content released by valve for the Pc version, however there is none on my (or any other that I know of) 360 (prefer 360, less rate and cheating issues).

Is the additional content going to be released for the 360? Is it going to be free in the form of an update, or is it going to be a free market download, or is it going to be a paid for market download?

Also are the damage rates different in the 360 version? Because I have seen a few sources now that all provide identical/similar figures, and were compiled using the Pc version, yet ingame on the 360 the damage amounts differ greatly from those stated.

Also are the very present glitches in the 360 version (of which skywalking is the most notable) present in the Pc version? and are they scheduled to be removed?92.5.131.121 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I own both, and let me say, in all things, consider the 360 version about a month or two behind the PC one at all times. Valve has announced that the April PC update will be coming to the 360 soon, though they cannot announce anything for the PS3 version. And as for the damage values... they are the same, and the notable difference can really be explained as the difference in control schemes. PC gets to aim faster, but 360 has incredibly steady aim. Once someone's on your crosshairs in 360, there's much less of a chance of them getting away.

And as an owner of both, I agree- I enjoy the 360 version more. It's not better, really, I just like the flavor of it better. 12.210.80.126 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies- didn't know I wasn't logged in. That was me. Midaki (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Update?

Should we put something in about the upcoming medic update? It seems notable enough to garner at least a paragraph or two (considering it adds three new unlockable weapons, 36 achievements and a new map).

Replace the word "paragraph" with "sentence" and you'd be right. We don't need two paragraphs to one single update that hasn't happened yet. -- Sabre (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Valve's constant free update philosophy is worthy of its own section, IMHO. There are already a few larger updates since launch, and it'll become quite central to the game experience as time goes on. Also, Valve are notably unique in providing so much free downloadable content. I say we create an "Updates" section where news maps, unlockables, significant tweaks and similar can be mentioned. HertzaHaeon (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about adding in any of the updates before this one, they just aren't notable enough. This update, however, adds entirely new game mechanics and should definitely be added in. 98.209.113.94 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No update is so notable that it requires a section. Just a few sentences to modify existing information in existing sections is all that is needed. Wikipedia isn't a news site, and such information is more aimed at fans of the game than encyclopedia readers. -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No single update deserves its own section, sure, but the updatign strategy as a whole does. It's undeniably central to the game's play mechanics and experience. What's more, with no specific place to write about updates, you'll get a lot of little sentences spread throughout the article, since updates cover so much. Wouldn't it be more to the point and informative to keep them in their own section? HertzaHaeon (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If kept short, encyclopedic and positively away from the game guide material around the rest of the article, then you're looking at a few sentences or a paragraph tops into the development section. If it's going anywhere, it should be in there, not in a dedicated main heading. Anything more indepth than that is highly likely to fall into the realms of the game guide, and that is not what Wikipedia is here for. Heck, what we've got on the classes at the moment is still too indepth, and needs to be reorganised before any good article attempt is made. -- Sabre (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in the Development section, but it really doesn't fit under the Release subsection, since that covers the game as it was when it was new. A new section would work better, IMHO. How about something like this:

Updates & ongoing development

Since the release of Team Fortress 2, Valve has continously released free updates and patches through Steam. The updates include new official maps and game modes, as well as tweaks to classes and new weapons that can be unlocked through achievements. Valve has stated that they aim to keep the updates free even for console versions of the games.[1]

That's of course with the soon to be released update with unlockables in mind. HertzaHaeon (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems excellent: it keeps a good distance away from the unnecessary detail, but does a good job of putting the point that updates are happening. It's also relatively short. I'll put that in. However, I think it can fit into the release section with a quick name change to the release sub-section title: release and ongoing development. If it becomes necessary to expand that later, it can be broken off into a new subsection, but I can't forsee that being necessary. I'll look into getting some more references for it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were to be a massive update, i.e. adding stuff like vehicles and outer space and stuff that would CERTAINLY be enough to justify an entire section. Although I agree with you in the fact that it only needs a few sentences. 204.38.161.175 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It has just been released. 68.32.208.49 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the uypdate has been released and the map/gametype "Gold Rush" and the three new medic weapons have been released. And the have confirmed 3 new classes and 36 new acievements PER CLASS are coming soon. Once they are ALL released I can see this becoming a paragraph. --APShinobi ^{My Contribs} 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to cover this like a news or fan site. We cover what is necessary for a reader who has not and may never play the game needs to know, so the fact that the medic gets a saw with a syringe in it or the pyro gets a napalm-spewing thermos is not relevant. Major updates should be covered in the development, but not in that level of detail, rather an overview. -- Sabre 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Kukri, not a machete

I just downloaded the Goldrush update, and checked out the screen where it shows what weapons you have earned so far. On the Sniper's page, the "machete" is listed as a "Kukri." With the old debate solved, I have updated the page to reflect this. Anyone who has TF2, can go and look at it for themselves and confirm it. I mean, I know that we are all about verifiable sources of information, but it looks like we could have had a leap of faith on this issue and it would have been fine. 72.234.46.115 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we could have, but that would have been against Wikipedia policies. Anyway, we have a source now, and it's fixed. Midaki (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TF2 improvements

I'm going to conduct a partial rewrite of some elements of the article, namely the gameplay section. This is the bit that's holding the article up more than any for GA status, so I'm going to redo it to provide a better, more generalised overview in keeping with our guidelines. With the new weapon updates and such, the current structure is not sustainable, involves far too much detail on individual classes and can too easily fall into excessive game-guide information. Certainly one of the things I'm going to cut back on is the physical descriptions of each class, as Image:TF2 Group.jpg does that job without the need for the prose. -- Sabre (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think dot points with a line of description each would look nice.--203.214.96.163 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, the guidelines state that lists should be avoided within video game articles. If it can be done in prose, as it has been, it should be. I did discuss the idea of lists with a more experienced member of the WP:VG project, but as the assessment at the top of this page put forward, a brief overview perspective in prose is far superior in terms of encyclopedic quality than a list or individual sections. -- Sabre (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, the way I see it, there's two main things holding us up before going for good article status. The first is the lead section, I'll take care of that later. The second is the missing citations. There are at least three "citation needed" tags in the development section that need to be taken care of, two of them relating to the "Invasion design" section, which is rather lacking in overall references. I'm going to take a look for some citations, can other people please make an attempt to find some references for these three points as well, as otherwise the information is going to have to be removed if it cannot be verified. -- Sabre (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the lead. The only major thing left is those citations. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best with the citations. I've unfortunately had to merge the Invasion section as I can't find sources to back it up. -- Sabre (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

Overall, I think that this article is a very solid article. Its prose and images are all here. I think that the only issue here is in the realm of citations. Several statements are potentially questionable and need citations. Here are the ones I found:

• Early development: "During that time, both Walker and Cook worked on various other Valve projects—Walker was project lead on Half-Life 2: Episode One and Cook became a Steam developer, among other tasks—raising doubts that Team Fortress 2 was really the active project that would be repeatedly described."
• Final design: "Due to the game's lengthy development cycle it was often mentioned alongside Duke Nukem Forever, another long-anticipated game that has seen many years of protracted development and engine changes." Just give an example or two of say, Wired News, so it doesn't look like OR.
• Final design: "Team Fortress 2 was also the first game to implement the Source engine's new Facial animation 3 features."
• The whole Release and ongoing development section.

For these reasons, I'm keeping the article on hold for a week. I don't expect that they should be too hard to cite, but if they are, let me know. I'll be checking within a week, but if there are special circumstances or if they are cited before that, I'll take a look at it. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've addressed them all. -- Sabre (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's better. I feel that I can promote now. If you're aiming for FA status, I suggest an expansion of the reception section. A few more reviews are coming in, for example, Gamespot just posted their belated review of TF2 only. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I too feel the reception section is still a bit short, but I simply ran out of things to say. I'll take it on again in a month or two, see if I can't expand it some more. -- Sabre (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

classes

consolidating the existing information about the classes into 3 paragraphs resulted in the same information as before, but presented in a more disorganized way. As such, reverted to the older page. Serializing the list into paragraphs greatly detracted from the overall readability of the article, and did nothing to remove un-encyclopedic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.195 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it presents the same information in less than half the space? That sounds great—the old version must have been rife with redundancies. Pagrashtak 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the concern is that the information is now less readable in it's current form, I'm happy to do a copyedit. Please understand though that we're not trying to go into unnecessary detail here, as we're not making a manual or trying to mimic strategy guides etc. Hopefully there's a compromise where we can have clear, sourced information without breaking policies on having too much detail.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that the "classes" section is flawed as it is right now. Just finding information about a certain class without reading it all is impossible (except for doing a search). At least the name of each class should be in bold or something. I won't edit it right away. Ran4 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the classes section could be easier to scan quickly. Bold class names could help. I didn't find any style guidelines for this problem specifically, but I've seen lists with special items in bold type. I've taken the liberty to try it out in the article for now. If people don't like it I suggest we come up with another solution. HertzaHaeon (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the only people who are going to want to find information about a certain class are most likely to be the fans, and we're not supposed to be writing for them: we write these articles with people who have not and may never play the game in mind. Besides, each paragraph opens with a sentence saying which three classes are covered in the paragraph, so I can not really see much point in highlighting where the individual classes are covered further to that. As for the bold, it just looks odd, but I personally would prefer to not have any special formatting at all for the above reason that the paragraphs are signposted with which classes they cover. However, for the moment, I've downgraded them to italics, as it looks slightly less odd than the bold. -- Sabre (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the section in the light of a new day, I think perhaps you're right. Bold class names were definitely too much. Italics looks a bit odd as well, imho. Besides, it's a formatting already used for fictional names. I won't protest if we go back to the old look. HertzaHaeon (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, removed the formatting. -- Sabre (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like this classes section. It's crunched together so I can't really understand it. Is there a good reason why we can't just use subtitles for each class? If you ask me, I think that the classes are a big enough deal to split them up better than what we have. They're basically the whole game. I do understand that the problem could be that there isn't enough information to split each class under subtitles. So maybe we could go about adding a bit more detail for each class and then split each class up using subtitles. Here's my suggestions on all the information we can include.

• Appearence and Personality
• Abilities (Speed, health, cloaking...)
• Weapons + any details (Medigun + ubercharge, butterfly knife + backstabs)

If any of these suggestions don't work feel free to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn N Flare (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• That would be too much detail, I believe, bordering on 'game guide' or 'fancruft'. And Wikipedia is not about that kinda stuff. Dp76764 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we've already included appearences and personalities in this article along with a few abilities. I just figured we could add a bit more detail to all of these aspects. If it gets to a point where we start explaining how to use each class or what each weapon is for, it might be a little much. But I do think it's important to explain each classes' arsenal and style (yes, even the styles, the style of the characters did contribute to a few of the awards for TF2). Burn N Flare (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if it's properly sourced, that might be a different case. Got any links to awards specifically mentioning the class styles? Dp76764 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Appearances don't need describing, its why there's an image for the classes, personalities are already covered. We've got a basic run-down of the classes, their key weapons and their role - all that a reader who has not played the game needs to know. Abilities, full weapon details and game strategies and playstyles more detailed than that fly completely in the face of WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. It doesn't matter how well sourced it is, that stuff simply isn't suitable for Wikipedia. -- Sabre (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think we need to describe the weapons as simple as "The engineer has a shotgun, pistol, and a wrench which is used to repair buildings and upgrade sentry guns." I don't want to describe each classes play style or strategies, but include simple facts about each class and their arsenal. Burn N Flare (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The key weapons have already been described—not every weapon is relevant. Most of the secondary weapons and melee weapons don't contribute to the class's role, such as the shotgun and pistol, that's why they are summarised concisely as "each class has at least three weapons: a unique primary weapon, a secondary weapon such as a shotgun or pistol and a distinct melee weapon in keeping with the character, such as a liquor bottle for the demoman, a kukri for the sniper and a fire axe for the pyro." Being concise is everything, and littering the article with the exact weapons that each class has doesn't help that or enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. Knowing that the engineer can build weapons and teleporters is vital to understanding the class, knowing that he has a shotgun, pistol and wrench is not. -- Sabre (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess we're sort of stuck. I've read through the classes section and it's just not very easy to understand, and if I didn't know what I do about TF2 then I would probably have no clue what it meant. I'm going to provide a few more details to make some things clearer. However, I still think we need to brainstorm ideas on what we can do to make this more readable. (forgot to login before signing, sorry) Burn N Flare (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can make the prose clearer whilst presenting the same details (ie a straight copyedit), that would be reasonable. You might try getting someone from outside, who has not played the game, to give that a shot. But adding the details as discussed above won't, it will make it less clear to readers who haven't played the game, and increase the amount of unnecessary game guide material in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in, I'll do that sometime but I'm somewhat busy as it is now. But it'll happen eventually. Burn N Flare (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive detail

For reference.

Game Mode	Original Maps	2008 Update
Control Point	Dustbowl	Badlands
	Granary
	Gravel Pit
	Well (CP)
Capture The Flag	2Fort	Well (CTF)
Payload		Goldrush
Territory Control	Hydro

Cant be added because it violates wikipedia rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pyro is officially female

An independent, reputable games journalism and news source reports on an interview with CS-Nation by Valve's Robin Walker:

"We’ve never been terribly happy with the Pyro, in particular with her shallower skill curve than other combat classes. We really want highly skilled Pyros to be visibly more effective than the average Pyro, and the new features are designed to address that."

— Robin Walker, Rock, Paper, Shotgun

I'll update the article once this has sunk into people's heads so I don't get reverted before they see the talk page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say wait for proper confirmation. In the same interview, Robin Walker mentions how all of the models for the classes are male. -- I need a name (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite official word. Even the cited source says it's almost confirmed. Nufy8 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can quote at least one e-mail in which the same Robin Walker referred to the Pyro as a "he". This is a play on Valve's side, they know about the speculation going on about this and are probably having some fun. That's not an official confirmation in any way. 91.92.178.164 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That would explain the Pyro's purse in hir equipment locker... Probably Valve dicking about. :/ -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Damn spy sappin' mah sentry!)} 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Meet the Team CGI/machinima

Explaining my revert: this edit, aside from being unverified, seems to contradict an official Valve announcement stating that the "Meet the Heavy" video is "real-time, in-game, [and] in-engine." The edit also contradicts the sentence that follows it. Thoughts? Nufy8 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The trailers are simply professionally done machinima, and although there is a bit more detail in animation and texture (but you get that in a lot of other third-party Source machinima as well), it is all on the Source engine. -- Sabre (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It says that they have had continued support of new content for all versions, but all the new content has only come out on the PC version

Well console version would come someday. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a point, I believe all the updates that aren't vital (The achieves and all that jazz) have to be paid for (ha!). But I'm interested to see a reference to the more detailed models. Its fine, but I was wondering how people knew that, since it looks the same to me... Dragon909 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

I've noticed some of the images on this page are of ridiculous size (in kB). Look at the first image: 173kB for a 500x400 pixel image? That's quite a large filesize for that pixel count. Especially for people on slower connections...

Would anyone mind either a) Resaving them in Jpeg form with a better ratio of size and quality or 2) If you want the images to be lossless, upload them in .PNG? I'd do it myself but my current photo software isn't working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody-7 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A small error

I'm not sure quite how we could source this (we couldn't really get readers to buy the game themselves, could we?) but you list that some servers allow up to 32 people, however, I frequently see 34 person servers while I play Team Fortress Two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.192.194 (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, RED and BLU are listed as an excavations and demolitons, and a building company, but I remember reading somewhere that those were both simply fronts for the fact both of them are intelligence agencies. Can't remember where, though.67.33.192.194 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Class name capitalizations

I recently anonymously edited the article and capitalized the names of the classes, but my edit was reverted under the grounds that it was "unecessary" and that it was "messy for presentation". However, in all the Meet the Class biographies on the Steam store, the classes' names are capitalized. I feel that the official titles for the classes should be proper, and not common. Should the article be edited so? Homepie (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning for reverting is two-fold. Firstly, all the class names are perfectly acceptable English words and phrases, and in my mind can therefore be written easily without the capitalisations. If Valve were inventing names for the classes, that's a different matter, and I'd agree that they should be capitalised. The second reason, which is probably more picky than it should be is for presentation. To me, having capitalised words thrown in within an article that could be non-capitalised almost implies the presence of game guide content, even when there isn't actually any, as most of those who add game guide content (in general, not just here) often really do unnecessarily capitalise everything. So in the interest of removing that impression, I tend to remove capitalisations off of regular English words for classes or game concepts where possible. Feel free to disagree with those reasons, I realise they aren't very concrete and are very subjective on one's personal opinions. -- Sabre (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

weegee?

what about that time someone hacked in and put the weegee picture on the screen? shouldn't that be mentioned? 98.15.216.208 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. --Golbez (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?--SkyWalker (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

tremulous

This game seems very similar to tremulous, isn't it worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.154.125 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR. Please remember to sign your posts. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a very well known thing, there's a youtube video where someone hacked in and put a luigi picture on the map and kept saying 'I'm gonna headbutt ya' it should be on here somewhere. Shadowcelibi (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter if it's 'well known' and youtue is not a reliable source for something like this. Unless this gains some sort of actual notability, adding it will constitute original research. DP76764 (Talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Could this be added?

Well, is it there in the first place? Im talking about if the updates that the PC version recived is coming to the consles? If so when? Do we know? Is there a way to find out?And fuck you sinebot

• Find a WP:Reliable, verifiable source discussing it and it can be mentioned in the article. And sign your posts, please. Dp76764 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No I dont know if it is coming out. The TF2 website seams to lean to it and I only sign posts on the Diablo Wiki. Fuck Sinebot.

It is coming for X360 but it is not coming for PS3.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Verification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.40.74 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Release Date for 360 updates

Is their a confirmed update for the patches for the 360? if so they should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.75.1 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is prose superior to list formatting?

This:

* Capture the flag - The objective for both teams is to obtain a briefcase of intelligence from the enemy team's base and return it to their own base while preventing the opposing team from doing the same.

• Control Points - The map contains a number of marked positions known as control points. The objective for both teams is to secure all the points on the map.
• Attack/Defend - One team holds all of the control points and must defend them from the other for a set amount of time.
• Territory control - Introduced with the map "Hydro." Each team must capture the other team's single active control point to secure that section of the map. Once all sections have been captured by one team, they are then able to attack the other team's base directly.
• Payload - Introduced in April 2008 with the map "Gold Rush". One team has to work to escort a rail cart carrying a bomb along a track through a series of checkpoints, eventually detonating the bomb in the other team's base. The other team has to defend their positions and prevent the cart from reaching the end within a set amount of time.
• Arena - Released simultaneously with an update to the heavy class on 19 August 2008. Arena is a team deathmatch style mode with smaller maps and no respawning after the death of a player's character, in which one team wins by eliminating all of the other side's members in the arena or capturing the map's central control point.

seems far more readable, informative, appropriate, and not to mention more consistent with the formatting of sections on game modes in other Wikipedia articles about multiplayer PC games than this:

In capture the flag maps, the objective for both teams is to obtain a briefcase of intelligence from the enemy team's base and return it to their own base while preventing the opposing team from doing the same. Control point modes are more varied in their objectives, but share the common aim of capturing a particular point on the map. In some levels, the objective for both teams is to secure all the points on the map. On other levels, one team already holds all the points and must defend them from the other for a set amount of time. A third variation, introduced with the map "Hydro", is based on territory: each team must capture the other team's single active control point to secure that section of the map. Once all sections have been captured by one team, they are then able to attack the other team's base directly. A further game mode, payload, was introduced in April 2008 with the map "Gold Rush". In payload maps, one team has to work to escort a rail cart carrying a bomb along a track through a series of checkpoints, eventually detonating the bomb in the other team's base. The other team has to defend their positions and prevent the cart from reaching the end within a set amount of time. A new game mode, arena, was released with an update to the heavy class on 19 August 2008. Arena is a team deathmatch style mode with smaller maps and no respawning after the death of a player's character, in which one team wins by eliminating all of the other side's members in the arena or capturing the map's central control point.

But somebody disagreed with no reason given other than "prose is better." 129.42.208.182 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Find me another GA or FA class article that uses lists for its game modes. Consistency with low-quality articles (ie the bulk of articles on similar subjects) is not a requirement on Wikipedia. The list is entirely unnecessary, and gives the appearance of game guide content. There isn't so many game modes as to require a list, so there's no reason to present it like its from a guide or instruction manual to the game. -- Sabre (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War, for one. And I don't see that the list format makes it look especially like game guide content, it just makes it more structured and easier to read than what is essentially a list in paragraph format.129.42.208.183 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I still oppose the use of a list. Not only would such a list get shot to pieces at an FAC anyway when prose can do the same thing, you're also assigning arbitrary names to the modes (other than payload, CTF and arena), such as "Attack/Defend", "Territory Control", which while it may seem trivial, still conflicts with no original research. I'm sorry we disagree on this, I just think that the prose approach is far better, but lets see what anyone else says on the issue. -- Sabre (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't really say anything about your FAC point (I just don't know how that usually works), but none of the mode names are arbitrary. They all come straight from the game. The mission briefing screens say things like "Dustbowl is an Attack/Defend Map" and "Hydro is a Territory Control Map."129.42.208.182 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the startup videos. Sorry, I forgot about those. -- Sabre (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The list flows much better--XatuNatu (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think, personally, that the list looks better overall from a purely aesthetic standpoint. However, I think that prose is what Wikipedia tends to go for, as it is more encyclopedic in nature. I'm going to have to remain neutral on this one.--Dukeruckley (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is good prose > list > bad prose. The prose here isn't that good but I prefer how it condenses the tc_ and two cp_ modes together, so I too think it's a tossup. Nifboy (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the modes shouldn't even feature, as it falls into the "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts." aspect, which WP:VG guidelines say aren't suitable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to provide a comprehensive view of a multiplayer game when the article doesn't actually say what players are meant to do, so I'm sure we can overlook that point. The "lists of gameplay items, weapons or concepts" aspect, particularly with the class section, used to be a heck of a lot worse before the article's promotion to GA. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Prose, especially as it helps keep gametype summaries to a minimum. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)