Talk:Wipeout (video game)

Screenshot

There is a screenshot of Wipeout available at Image:PSX_Wipeout.png (I can't figure out how to put a link to an image without inlining the image). It'd be a great addition, but I'm not sure where it would look best in the article.

Also, does anybody know if the two drivers for each team give different characteristics to the ship? I lost my game disc a LONG time ago, and I don't remember. Please add it to the article if they do make a difference. — Wwagner 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Added the pic. And I don't think the pilot does have any effect on the way the ship looks, except for the numbering. If there isn't any numbering on the ships, then I am probably way off. JD 00:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll need to keep working on the placement. I think it's a little cluttered at the top, and the lead text gets a little lost; I tried a bunch of different placements, but most of them didn't work much better. It appears that you did too (just FYI, the Show Preview button will allow you to see how different things look without having to save and re-edit). Maybe down at the Tracks heading on the right side? That kinda fits, don't you think? I don't think I tried it that far down. — Wwagner 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

lmao i know, but I thought it would look alright so I didn't bother using it.

I moved the image again, and I think the new positioning is better than having it at the very top. Some of the text still gets a little squished, but I think we're just going to have to put up with that. I tried putting it way down under some of the headings, and it just looks lost down there. — Wwagner 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The pilot of the ship in the original WipEout does not matter. The only difference is the character you see at the end of the race, and the color scheme of the ship. In WipEout Fusion, however, there is a stat boost if you unlock the second pilot for whatever team you are racing for ApteryxRainWing (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That solved their queries eighteen years later! ♦ JAGUAR  21:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It was fine where it was - do you have to keep changing the smallest things?

The "Wipeout (1995)" Section

I put it like that so the table of contents appeared at the top of the page, rather than below the info. Maybe it could be changed to something else if you don't think that's appropriate, unless there's a way to have the table of contents appear above the text. I also reckon the team info should stay in this article, as the Wipeout teams article is far too long. JD 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the toplevel heading because standard article organization on Wikipedia seems to have one or two lead paragraphs above the TOC, and then the rest under it. If you want the TOC to move up, I would suggest placing another heading at the discussion of the 1995 launch (third paragraph, call it "Wipeout Launch" perhaps?) would move the TOC up, but not put it at the top. — Wwagner 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that there's an extra music track on the Saturn version? It's not on the Playstation release, and unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Saturn version, so I can't find out the name. But I remember the guitar riff that runs through it - quite catchy.

The Saturn exclusive music tracks and their artists have been discussed here: http://www.wipeoutzone.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1841.html According to MobyGames, both Rob Lord and Mark Bandola have at one time worked for Psygnosis, so I assume the information is correct.

Wonder if someone can change the pic of the game cover art to this instead http://www.mobygames.com/game/wipeout/cover-art/gameCoverId,22961/ OR maybe show both covers

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be offline and on the road over the next week. I'll review this then. czar ♔ 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   lede quotes, Reception paraphrase needs fixing

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend

• Is there a citation for any site using the stylization wipE'out"?
• "It is the first game in the Wipeout series set in the year 2052." Is the Wipeout series set in 2052 or is it the first game, set in 2052?
• A few more comma issues in the lede
• Watch your "comma gerunds" (the "racing league, piloting one", etc.)
• First ¶ of Gameplay is unsourced
• ATI3DCIF section is unsourced, though it's also gamecruft unless another source cares to explain why its tech specs are notable
• Same for this one, needs expansion in Reception badly
• Also the sources for the last two paragraphs of Dev + release do not look good
• remove soundtrack tracklisting as not independently notable per WPVG consensus
• incorrect use of "eponymous", I believe
• link port
• per overlinking rules, the OST should only be linked once in the body outside the lede

• Gameplay caption doesn't explain what's happening
• Gameplay doesn't go into depth as to differences between teams and ships or how races are won or scored, how boost works, you know, basic stuff
• "Wipeout was later ported" is a runon
• Do you have any sources on the development's timespan?
• Is the tech specs stuff necessary? Seems really out of place as minutiae
• Music is small enough that it could fit into the dev section
• Doesn't it make more sense to start the Reception with Metacritic than IGN?
• 'saying that despite the game's "reliance on track-based power-ups" would "limit Wipeout’s lifespan"' what?
• Do any of the mags go into greater detail?
• Why isn't EGM in the review box?
• Reception is lacking broadness—I can't tell what their common concerns and praise was
• Make sure the contents of the infobox are sourced within the article (esp. release dates)

• Might want to update the cover art FUR and use a template for the screenshot's file page
• Lede should do a better job of summarizing overall coverage rather than pulling their quotes out of context. Also those quotes would need immediate citations if left in the lede
• Did it win any awards?
• Discogs is an unreliable source—it can't be used

czar ♔ 23:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Czar! I currently have five GANs open at once so I'll address this one after PlayStation and Jumping Flash! 2 (should be a couple of days). I know you're busy too so it won't be a problem. By the way, I don't know how to address your first concern about the stylisation of 'wipEout' as the title screen, logo(s), packaging and everything else in the game uses that style but for the sake of Wikipedia this page uses "Wipeout" instead. I'll try to find some sources but they are scarce. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I understand re: the stylization, but I'd say that it's not worth mentioning if none of the sources mention it either, especially as it's so weird. Also readers can get the impression of the stylization from the box art, for what it's worth czar ♔ 14:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm attending to this review now, sorry for the wait as I couldn't edit yesterday as I got abused at by an old man. I should have this one done by the end of the day! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of the review now. I'll do the references last, but what do you think of the development section now? Do you think I should remove the jargon-y two final paragraphs as I can't find any reliable sourcing for them? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph with the tech specs can likely be tossed. The rest needs to be copyedited and tightened (fewer paragraphs). I'd keep the penultimate paragraph that covers the launch and try to source it. Also you'll need to check every source you're using for facts against the WP:VG/RS list. Some of the sources don't look reliable. Hope the old man situation wasn't too abusive czar ♔ 00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now addressed everything except the reception section - which I will copy edit and expand now. I have removed all unreliable references (although Discogs remain in the External Links), and have copy edited the development section. I've almost finished, thank you for your patience! And the old colonel, I couldn't understand anything he said (too stereotypical maybe)!

As far as I know this Wipeout did not win any awards despite it being well received, however, the sole music provider CoLD SToRAGE won a few awards during the release. I'm not sure if this is relevant... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: I think I have addressed all of the issues raised in the GAN. I have copy edited the article, removed all unreliable references and have replaced them. As for the development section, I used all of the information I could find but it's surprising enough to find that this Wipeout didn't receive many reviews compared to the others. Anyway, let me know what you think now? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, I see that it's been edited, but I see a lot left unaddressed. Like the infobox people are unsourced (not cited or mentioned in prose), the stylization is unsourced. I'm also finding things like "with CoLD SToRAGE being the most notable omission given his prevalence" which is original research if not actually said by the source cited. We shouldn't be making these claims ourselves—only citing what reliable sources say about a topic. There are also a number of grammatical errors: "The game positively received from critics upon release; who praised the game for its originality and its vast "unique techno soundtrack" however was criticised for its in-game physics" with run-on sentences. The added poster is too high res and needs to be reduced and its FUR does not adequately cover the NFCC needed for its inclusion. And the source used to make claims about Sara Cox, TheAverageGamer has no editorial policy and does not appear reliable. It needs to be taken to WP:VG/RS for discussion if you think it has other merits. And what about the added "Wipeout gained a significant amount of controversy upon its initial release in the United Kingdom." Bold claim! Needs citation. This is all to say that unfortunately the article still appears to have too many lingering issues to pass muster. I'll leave it open a few more days in case clarification would be useful, but I would recommend nominating it again at a later time (similar to what I'm saying on all the Wipeout articles) after there has been some time to fact-check and copyedit with input from other editors. (Also re: the lack of reviews—they exist, they're just in print sources. Magazines were much bigger in 1995 and, in fact, I remember reading reviews of this game. Try the main PlayStation and PC gaming mags.) czar ♔ 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing, as discussed czar ♔ 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Multiplayer info is missing from the gameplay section. --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed multiplayer from the infobox as this Wipeout is single player only. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. Playstation version has 2-player Link Cable support and PC version has 8-player online multiplayer and 2-player with a serial cable. --Mika1h (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I have the Saturn version and I clumsily checked that alone instead of the other versions. I'll write a multilayer paragraph in the gameplay section soon. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 22:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref idea

Kotaku retrospective. JAGUAR  20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Soundtracks

The article says, "Wipeout was ported to the Sega Saturn in 1996, however because the company behind the PlayStation, Sony, owned the applicable rights to most of the PlayStation version's soundtrack, new music was recorded for the Saturn version by Psygnosis's in-house music team, CoLD SToRAGE." However, the PS1 soundtrack has the same Cold Storage tracks as the Sega Saturn soundtrack according to Discogs. The Sega Saturn has three extra tracks by other people, though. Mobygames explains this better, IMO. SharkD  Talk  09:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay to add a track listing to the article, like is done for Wipeout 2097? Can I use discogs as a source? SharkD  Talk  17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add another note about something I think is wrong about the OST section. I got a PS1 PAL version of the game (came with PAL PS1 winter 1995 AKA bundled launch title), and it does not have anything other than Cold Storage tracks. 100% sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.12.240 (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wipeout (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091028210317/http://psp.vggen.com/news/news.php?id=4182 to http://psp.vggen.com/news/news.php?id=4182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox fix?

Is anyone interested in fixing this failed attempt at using the Userbox template? SoyokoAnis - talk 21:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)