Talk:Falcon 4.0: Allied Force

Advertisement
The inclusion of solely positive reviews and awards makes the article seem like an advertisement for the game.--JagSeal (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty hard to find fault with the game, other than the fact that it could be too realistic and complex for some people. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, either that should be mentioned or the reviews section removed. Is it normal to have a reviews section for a video game article? 57.67.17.100 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they usually do. They're not treated that differently from a film or piece of music. It gives the reader an idea of what is or was thought of the game. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A review section is certainly acceptable, but there is more review in this article than there is article, and that is a problem. 59.167.43.8 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay - have added a new body to it - and I agree the awards section needs to be redone or maybe some of the quotes taken out --NeilsForReading (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

bias
This article is so poorly written and biased that it should be deleted and rewritten. 100DashSix (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Edited to fix it up a bit. 100DashSix (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats quite a poor statement to make - certainly the body from "The simulation" to the Game Modifications section is 100% fact im afraid - the debate above was regarding the lower and higher sections which I havnt touched - although I dont agree an awards section should be in there - and will be watching in case you decide to make any other "changes" to the section written by me. --NeilsForReading (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200628081535/http://www.pixsoriginadventures.co.uk/PCZone/PC%20Zone%20158%20%28September%202005%29/PC%20Zone%20158%20%28September%202005%29.pdf - PC Zone review