Talk:Aliens Versus Predator (1999 video game)/Archive 1

Engine
question: what game engine does this title run on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.109.40 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * answer: as far as I can remember, Rebellion had their own engine, written in-house The Real Walrus 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed a peice of AVP gold section
There are no additional levels in AVP gold that weren't in the original version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.156.235 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have noticed that the Merger proposal tag has been removed. While people may like the game, surely it does not justify having over 10 articles for the AvP series? This particular article has a Plot summary and nothing much else - taking a quick look at the other AvP game articles reveals the same. There are no references to back up any statements or notability. If it's to stand on its own it needs Development and Reception sections at the least, plus reliable sourced references. Nreive (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, which is why I placed the merger suggestion tag in the first place. The reason for the list article (which I haven't worked on much...I'm trying to come up with a better format as the current one is rather complicated to build in the editor) was because there are literally a couple dozen articles on Alien and Predator video games that consist of nothing but an infobox, plot summary, and galleries of non-free screenshots. Without any supporting references, particularly third-party ones, or any discussion of development or impact, these articles do not demonstrate the notability to stand alone. Therefore it is sensible to merge the useful information into a list article. Just because this article has more material in it doesn't make it able to stand alone; it lacks real-world context and 80% of its content amounts to an extremely detailed plot summary, a practice normally discouraged on Wikipedia. If someone can beef up this article with real-world info and third-party sources, by all means go ahead. I'm really the only one working on merging the video games into the list article, and believe me I'm in no hurry as it's a large task. So there's plenty of time to improve this article to the point where it might be able to stand alone. But if that can't be done, I'll probably eventually merge it. In any case the tags shouldn't be removed without some kind of discussion/consensus on the talk pages of the individual articles or at Talk:List of Alien and Predator games. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article itself is relatively basic, but there is plenty of sources out there.  The game was exceptionally well received in its day, spawning the even more successful sequel. I think all the article needs is a decent "reception" section and it stands well alone. I know that this game, along with AvP2, was one of the key reasons Fox decided that their movie focus for Predator/Alien franchises would work combined together.  I'll hunt out some references and expand. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now added some reference and expanded the detail of the reception section. References are extremely abundant. In fact, the three references there are so detailed that a massive article could easily be created from them. The AVault review alone is three pages of small type text, and one of images. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Aliens versus Predator (video game) → Aliens versus Predator (computer game) — This is an excessively imprecise disambiguator, since there have been several AvP titled video games, and we have articles for several of them. ( ie. Alien vs Predator (SNES), Alien vs. Predator (arcade game) , Alien vs Predator (Jaguar game) , Alien vs Predator (Lynx game) , Alien vs. Predator (mobile game)) The "(video game)" disambiguator should not be used, or if used, should be a dab page. — 76.66.195.159 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose: Unnecessary as the title is not identical other games. Note that this game is Aliens versus Predator ("Aliens" being plural and "versus" spelled out in full). All of the other examples listed use Alien vs. Predator ("Alien" being singular and "vs." being abbreviated). Since the titles are not identical, there is no conflict with other games of the same title. There is in fact no other video game titled "Aliens versus Predator". The disambiguation is only necessary because there are several other topics that use similar or nearly-identical titles and it was decided that Aliens versus Predator should redirect to the main article on the Alien vs. Predator franchise. While I can see the merit for having "Alien vs. Predator" be a dab page and moving the franchise article to "Alien vs. Predator (franchise)", it still wouldn't necessitate moving this article since nothing else has the exact same title. Computer games are a more precise category of video games, so until another video game comes along that uses the exact title "Aliens versus Predator", we do not need to change the dab to the more specific (computer game). A majority of the other similarly-titled games are marked for merger into List of Alien and Predator games anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: The subject matter is completely different, that only share parts of a similar (but NOT the same) license. I don't see how this would assist the article listing of this AvP game, nor the francise.  I also don't see any wikipedia policy that would support this move. The reason we have seperate articles, and the reason we have the "video game" disambiguator - is because the article meets all the requirements of the VG Project, and is handled the same as other VG Project titles to achieve consistency. Icemotoboy (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Survival Horror classification
I've noticed a few changes and reverts regarding people classifying and unclassifying the article as a survival horror game. I did notice that some reviews (1) describe playing a marine as a survival horror FPS, but I think because of the three game modes... classifying the entire game as a survival horror is problematic. Did anyone else have any thoughts? I think the game was not a typical FPS, and reviews certainly indicated this also. I know that AvP2 was also considered to borrow somewhat from the survival horror genre, but in terms of classification.... what do people think? Icemotoboy (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I've only seen 1 person add survival horror (the IP today), and I reverted it since there's nothing in the article (nor in the 3 reviews used as sources) to suggest it fits that genre. It's clearly a FPS, since that describes the play mechanics rather than the "tone" of the game, but I think that to classify it as survival horror, which has more to do with plot, atmosphere, and mood, is going to require some sources. It's certainly not at all like traditional survival horror games a la Resident Evil/Silent Hill/Alone in the Dark, and looking at the "Themes of survival horror games" of the survival horror article I don't think it fits the description. Of course I'm willing to default to any sources that might be brought up saying that it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts really too. It's gameplay is an FPS (unlike, say, Silent Hill). Mind you, Resident Evil is considered a key Survival Horror game... and it's an FPS with a gameplay similar in ways to AvP.  The difference with AvP is that it has three gameplay modes, and only one of them I have found a source referring to as a survival horror (see the link in my post above).  Any thoughts? Icemotoboy (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, the Resident Evil games are not FPS's. Not the core ones, anyway...a couple of the side games (Survivor, Umbrella Chronicles) are FPS's or rail shooters, but the core 7 games, and most of the other side games, are all third-person and the gameplay focuses more on exploration and puzzle solving than shooting (though there is shooting involved). I've played 5 of the 7 core games and IMO they are nothing like the AVPs (nor like FPS's) as far as gameplay. But I digress...I agree with you that having 1 gameplay mode that feels kind of like survival horror doesn't make the game as a whole a survival horror title. There are moments in the Halo and Half-Life series that are tense and horror-like (and involve zombies), but that doesn't make them survival horror either. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial patch
On newer video cards, many users have trouble getting the game to work graphically. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add a link to it since it is the primary way to get the game working on newer graphics cards. An unofficial patch has been made, converting the game's graphic code to the DX9 path. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to make an External Links section and place it there. The link in question is: http://homepage.eircom.net/~duncandsl/avp/ Eik Corell (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be appropriate per WP:EL and WP:NOT. This is an encyclopedia, not a resource for computer game patches (particularly "unofficial" ones). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)