Talk:The Need for Speed

Best of series

In my opinion, this game has been the best of the Need For Speed series. I always have loved the detailed information and showcases of each car, the videos, pictures, etc. Also, the realism in which the cars handled was outstanding. The feel you got from shifting gears, how you could do burnouts that actually felt right, all those little pieces put together a seriously real driving simulator.

The newest series have focused too much in the graphic details, leaving driving realism a little to the side. You have to agree on one thing (about the Underground 2 game): nobody has ever shifted gears THAT SLOW in their life.

Yeah, this one was a gooder. Many an hour of my youth spend playing this game. However, I'd have to say Porsche Unleashed was better. Better graphics, sound, tracks, more cars, factory driver mode, and still a huge emphasis on realistic handling.24.69.133.249 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article

The name of the article should be "The Need for Speed", while the article about series is "Need for Speed". However, there exists already a redirect page of that name, which should be deleted. --Jarkka Saariluoma 10:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "(The First Game)" to "(video game)". The latter is a more standardized disambiguation title, and it isn't nessesary to take into account the game's position in a series. However, the "Road & Track Presents:" title has been returned for the the intro because it's verified to be used in the formal name of the game in GameSpot (PS and Saturn versions) and MobyGames. It's reasonable enough to retain a short article name for accessibility. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

Please note Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD which reads in part Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept (their emphasis), and Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting which seems to give no grounds at all for deleting. Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

It is said that the game was developed by EA Canada in 1994. But how come the EA Canada was founded only in the year 1999? Something's wrong. I mean the game is really old and I bet it appeared in 1994, but maybe the developer wasn't EA Canada. Or EA Canada was founded earlier than in 1999.

It's interesting to note that the studio, according to GameSpot, has developed games from as early as 1993 (particularly two sports games: NHL Hockey '93 and NHL '94). The PlayStation version of The Need for Speed was also developed by EA Canada and released in 1996. IGN has also included similar titles which predate the supposed 1999 formation of the studio. So I have to conclude that the company is likely to have been around long before 1999, and could have been a different entity prior to that. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

I doubt this is a mistake. I have the PC version of the game and the opening videos show an intro of Electronic Arts Canada, and Pioneer Produccions. --Cirilobeto 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny. This original cover art happens to mention both companies as well (lower left side). ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Windows XP

This article mentions that you can run the game under windows xp using dosbox - however I have tried this and haven't been able to get it to work - I've also seen a lot of forum threads on various internet sites with people trying, and failing to get it to work under windows xp. Has someone actually got it working under windows xp? if so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.108.56 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Windows XP, but I managed to get the game(Special Edition) working under Dosbox 0.73 in Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit, the only thing that didn't work properly was the video's but by some tweaking of the conf file and using Univbe, I got the video's to work too.Lmcgregoruk (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did get it to work in XP with DosBox, the original game, and had no problems at all so far. -- Cirilobeto (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just ran it on linux with dosbox-0.73 no problem so far, performance was a little bad though. -- 82.113.106.102 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've played the SE many a time using the original CD in DOSBox 0.73 on Vista Home Premium 32-bit. The videos still work as I remember back in Windows 98 (Only the intro videos worked, the others didn't). I agree with above comments about poor performance though. Jdenm8 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the line about Dosbox is pure advertisement, only loosely (if anyhow) related to the subject ! I'd rather see it simply removed. (a passerby) 5 june 2011

Image

Hello! How can I get the image in commons? I'm from wikipedia in spanish, and I need the picturo to make best the article. But isn't in commons! Who can put it there? Myself? Or the user that upload the picture - 天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Pd: sorry by my english! =S

Bonus/Secret Car

Okay, it's been more than 10 years since I've played this game... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a special car that you can unlock? A purple futuristic one that goes 260+ mph? I might be misremembering, and it might be some add on that I had. Anybody know? Brendtron5000 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was called the Warrior PT/2, it was a purple/green/silver car, with an interior that mixed parts of the Lamborghini and Corvette. It had digital speedometer, 800 Hp (according to the game), and had acceleration similar to the Veyron hehe. -- Cirilobeto (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its name is "Warrior PTO E/2".74.216.86.32 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to new title. Seems like WP:COMMONNAME is the driver here and there's no apparent ambiguity with similar titles. Mike Cline (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The Need for Speed → Road & Track Presents: The Need for Speed –

• This is the correct title of the game. It's usually on the box/in the logo, and on some spines, such as the US and EU releases of both the PlayStation and Saturn versions. Despatche (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, but I believe the WP:COMMONNAME is simply "The Need for Speed". Jenks24 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• But "the need for speed" has other meanings. Move Need for Speed (disambiguation) to Need for Speed? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME does say that the name most often used is preferably used as the title, not its full name. I agree with Jenks24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.105.45 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The question IMO is: Is this franchise the primary meaning of (The) Need for Speed? I think it probably is. Interested in evidence either way. Note that the correct title of the game is irrelevant in terms of WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. That is its original title, before the series gained prominence and the title was shortened to the 'common name'. And "Need for Speed" already exists for the series' later games anyway, so while this exists as a separate article I don't think there's any drawback to using the full name. Plus the matchup with the magazine was likely meant to sell the game by using the notable Road & Track name, so its likely that it was meant to be (originally) known by that full name. Note also the discussion above where an editor cites GameSpot as using the full title as the formal name. -- œ^™ 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That discusion, and your vote above, both seem to completely ignore Wikipedia policy and guideleines. Please note that the closing admin will consider not just the number of votes but also the validity of the arguments with respect to Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes I'm aware of WP:IAR thank you. I'm also aware of every other Wikipedia policy and guideline and don't quite appreciate being told that I'm ignorant of them. I don't know if maybe you took my support !vote as a direct challenge to you personally or what, but if you think my argument is invalid with respect to some unmentioned policy you can keep it to yourself, it's not helping this discussion. -- œ^™ 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • No personal attack intended. If you wish to appeal to WP:IAR that's fine, but I think you should have said so before. Better still would be to also acknowledge the rules you are proposing to ignore, and give some justification for ignoring those particular rules in this case. You seem to be implicitly acknowledging that WP:AT (the policy I quoted above) does not support the move, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm really not interested in a back and forth discussion on the intricacies of article naming policy. It's a simple, uncontroversial title change. Either one is fine. I don't feel strongly enough about it. -- œ^™ 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
          • If you really don't feel strongly about it then I suggest that you stop making unsupportable claims in defence of your views. I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but the move is clearly controversial. And for that matter, I did not call you ignorant. As to your speculation on my motives and advice above as to what is helping this discussion, words fail me. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
            • If you view this as clearly controversial then you clearly need a wikibreak. -- œ^™ 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.