Talk:Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved

Rewrite
There's now so little information here that it verges on vandalism! At least put a screenshot of Retro Evolved up, and the pictures of the enemies were nice too.
 * yeah. why did everyone shorten it. i dont have time now, but ill probably fix it later.
 * Sign your posts. :P And I was responsible for some of the shortening of the article.  I did so because the general consensus among WP policy editors seems to be that game articles should describe the overall premise of the game, general gameplay concepts, development, reception and criticism, and POSSIBLY cultural impact of the game.  Things that make the game significant.  And details about the individual enemies, strategies on doing well in the game, scoring details, etc., are not encyclopedic according to WP policy.  I don't necessarily agree with those policies, but the policies were derived from community consensus.
 * Trust me, I've had my fair share of "HEY! Why'd you delete all my hard work!?" moments on here too. But at this point, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
 * Also, most of the information that WAS here about the individual enemies was unsubstantiated - especially the enemy names. There was no official source I could find at the time of my edits that referred to the enemies by the variety of names they were given in this article, and so I deleted the information.  I'm pretty sure that some of the information was false and/or fancruft anyway, since much of it was off-color.  ("Ninja Death Stars", "The French", "Little Bitches", "Those Tiny Fuckers", etc.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, im not registered. i dont know how to sign :( anyways, i think that while that might be wikipedia's policy, i disagree. that information is something you would want to know if you are actually going to play the game. i think that most of the info that is what wikipedia "wants" is not anything a gamer would look the game up for. i think that whoever made that policy doesnt know very much about games, and therefore it is kind of our perrogitive to give the information people actually want to know. i again dont have the time, and i think i will fix the article later. if anyone has an objection, to that, discuss it here. oh, and in the guidelines, i found this. ignore all rules. i think that pretty much says that we should include the detailed information (unless you think that adding it doesn't improve the article, which i think most will agree that it does, but hey, i dont want to put words in your mouth. if you disagree, say so.)
 * This is a way-late response, I'm sure, but this would be for the benefit of those reading the thread at this point: The point of Wikipedia is to provide information that's relevant to the average person. We cannot and should not assume that the average reader is interested in all the minutiae of a game like Geometry Wars - they just want to know the basic info about it.  An experienced gamer like you or me will find scoring and strategy details interesting and helpful, but that's the sort of information that's best suited for a gaming website or wiki (like StrategyWiki), whose target audience is the avid gamer.  Wikipedia strives to be a source of general information that is useful to as many people as possible, and as such it does not need (nor does it benefit from) the little details.
 * I hope this helps explain my position. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vista-only Controversy
Nandesuka: please justify why you have deleted my paragraph about this controversy, i had rewritten it in neutral tone, and this controversy is a fact you can't deny, see that digg thread. 90.14.48.122 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a tertiary-source encyclopedia. Deciding whether something is "a controversy" based on (for example) comments on an internet forum violates our content policies.  If you can find an article about the controversy in a reliable third-party source (for example, gamespot), that might be appropriate for inclusion. Nandesuka 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much now anyway, it's just been released on Steam with Windows XP compatability. 86.9.71.118 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice addition of photos Interiot
My first ever Wikipedia article has developed quite quickly. :)
 * Thanks. :)  I had to take them with my DSLR though, I don't know if more accurate screen-caps are available or not.  Also, somebody needs to work out the scores that I wasn't able to (and possibly document the power-up thresholds?).  Aye, it's a great game.  --Interiot 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a good article for a rather obscure title, but it could still use some work. It reads like an advert. And yea gj on photos and table. --Chroniclev 18:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is definently not written with a NPoV. Which I understand, it's a brilliant game, but I'm going to edit it with the obligatory "supposedly"s and "reportedly"s. :D ~ Doug teh H-Nu

Someone needs to upload picture of the magnet and butterflies.

May I ask why the table with these pictures and enemy information was taken out? I found it to be quite informative and made this article stand out as an excellent resource for in-game information. I think you should consider putting it back in, or perhaps moving it to a separate article on Geometry Wars Adversaries. Thanks, Jimothy.


 * I agree, cleanup doesn't require the deletion of good information. BirdValiant 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did the cleanup, and I was following the examples of some of the people who've been setting and enforcing policies about game-guide material here on WP. (I don't necessarily agree with those policies, but I am trying to follow them.)  The previous info contained four or five different (and unsubstantiated) names for each enemy (some of which were quite off-color and unencyclopedic), and I disagree that you need a picture to describe every enemy in the game. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrections
The Windmill IS atracted to you, try it out if you want. Gonna correct it--SalomonMuriel 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot at the top of the page is from Grid Wars, not Geometry Wars


 * You're correct; I'll remove the image. Xihr (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

- A free version is here.


 * When I run that clone, after exiting it, the music continues to play. In order to stop it, I am forced to terminate the process through Task Manager.  Does anybody else have the same problem? BirdValiant 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I only get that problem if I exit via Alt-F4. Are you exiting through the ESC menu? 24.220.195.154 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I exit through the ESC menu. My entire desktop remains black, but I can reveal the icons by rolling my mouse over them, and fully by maximizing a window of some sort. BirdValiant 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Clone paragraph
Regarding the clone paragraph, it's not really notable enough to have in the article. Although clones do take work to create, they're generally relatively easy to create and release, relative to retail games, and therefore we don't usually include writeups for them. The Tetris article doesn't even list external links to individual clones. Regarding the "become an even greater phenomenon" comment, that's certainly possible, but an expanded writeup on Wikipedia won't be warranted until after such notability is gained outside of Wikipedia. (eg. after it becomes a phenomenon, you're welcome to come back and do a longer writeup) Since there are unlikely to be a large number of geowars clones (as with Tetris), it may be okay to keep the external link to the clone, but the expanded writeup is probably not currently warranted. --Interiot 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This anon just isn't being reasonable. --Chroniclev 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If a game that started out as a mini game inside of another--and the history of the article shows that the game was not released standalone at the time the article was written--can warrant it's own article, why can a clone of the game not warrant at least a footnote? Especially considering the XBox reaches such a small audience compared to a computer. The XBox is even reaching a small audience where general console gaming is concerned as the original Xbox--where Geometry Wars first appeared in 2003--had only sold 25 million units compared to the PS2's 90 million at the end of 2005. --The Naughty Anon


 * This article was created only a couple of days before the 360 was released, and there was already some amount of notable press about the new version, on top of the notable press and large popularity of original one (despite it being simply a mini-game). Generally, Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of all available information, it generally lists only information that a number of people believe to be notable.  --Interiot 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time the article was created it was still a mini game. Whether or not it was going to be made standalone does not matter as it was still a mini game.  Also I would like to see sources on the "notable press" about both the original and the new version as, being an avid gamer myself--computer, not console, however--and a reader of much internet news, I have never heard of Geometry Wars until now and neither have many other people to whom I've shown Grid Wars.  This leads me to reinforce my point that the Xbox is a secondary platform and the inclusion of information about the game now being available on a primary platform should stay.  Also, a quick google search shows that news of Grid Wars is currently making it's rounds through multiple forums and blogs, so obviously there are people who do believe it to be notable; and being that both mainstream TV and Printed news consider Blogs to be sources you cannot dismiss them as invalid.  --The Naughty Anon


 * When I showed Geometry Wars to children in Ethiopia, they hadn't heard of Grid Wars. So?  Notability is not best determined by a few people's lack of knowledge about a subject, but by several people who do know about it, and who are independent enough to have a neutral viewpoint on it.
 * Also, it's extremely implausible to claim that the creation of this article, TEN DAYS before the standalone version was released, means that the article was only about the original version.
 * Notability is a subjective criteria, but there are nonetheless quite a bit of semi-policy about it. You can read more here.  If you don't believe me or Chroniclev, you're free to create a new article on the clone, and let other people discuss it on AFD.  Vanity information is a little less subjective, and applies here as well.
 * Honestly, I thought that having just the external link was a reasonable compromise that goes further than other articles are willing to go. Per WP:NOT, we're not obliged to keep lists of perhipherally-related links.  --Interiot 17:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The original article has but a sentence mentioning that the game will be released standalone, therefore the entire article only has the mini game as it's foundation. The release of a standalone version is nothing but a footnote, just like the information about a clone version is.  A small sentence or two saying "hey, it's out there but there's not really much more to say on the subject."  Is it really that much of a problem to put one tiny little paragraph into the article?  I can not see how it's not relevant or encyclopaedic being that it expands upon the original article with new information and it notes, as far as I know, the first time that a clone has been made of a commercial game while said game is still in production.
 * Also since you linked both to an article about "vanity articles" and to "writing about yourself" I'm going to assume you believe me to be the author of the game; in which case you'd be wrong. I am a fan of this game, as well as other grassroots projects like it, and believe that it deserves at least a mention in a much larger article.  It's not big enough to warrant it's own article yet, but a sentence or two in a related article is too much as well?  By that reasoning half the information on Wikipedia should be deleted.


 * The clone has been reported about on Joystiq, Kotaku and other gaming blogs. They noted it for its almost exact duplication of the game. --Larsinio 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you say that, your only contribution has been to promote and advertise this clone while others are trying to create an encyclopedia. --Chroniclev 18:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fine folks at 1-Up seem to like Grid Wars too, you know. I'm not the Naughty Anon, as you will probably see from my IP address, but I do agree with him. If Wikipedia decided today to form a strict code of what should or should not be allowed into an article in terms of notability, I would agree with you. However you, yourselves, say that the distinction is subjective.  I think Grid Wars is notable enough to add to the page, and so does Larsinio (I think) and the Naughty Anon.  Why do our opinions matter less than yours?  Is this not a site for everyone, where everyone's ideas are taken into consideration?


 * For your reference: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3148113 Thenewsgeek 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited just to pluck a few randomly selected articles from the internet...


 * http://goodblimey.com/archives/2006/02/16/gridwars-geometry-wars-clone/
 * http://jayisgames.com/archives/2006/03/gridwars.php
 * http://games.blogcarnival.com/archives/2006/02/friday_fun_grid.html
 * http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/03/05/indie-game-gridwars/
 * http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/54859
 * http://newlinks.blogspot.com/2006/03/gridwars-geometry-wars-for-free.html
 * http://www.the2bears.com/?p=243


 * Oh and look here, even GameSpot mentions it:
 * http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24346899&user=Jeff Thenewsgeek 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof that Grid Wars is "notable" yet there's an incredible silence in the peanut gallery. 67.8.136.145 09:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When arguing for an article's inclusion, please use the assessment instructions rather than citing that an article may or may not have been up to standards. But, if 'grid wars' itself isn't notable, then how about a section on the fact that Bizarre Creations is suing over their IP in attempting to take down the clones?68.229.162.166 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... when I started this article, my inspiration was from the original Geometry Wars in Project Gotham Racing 2. I didn't know about the new Geometry Wars: Retro Revolved other than that there was going to be a new version for the Xbox 360 with improved graphics.  I kinda assumed that somebody would make a new article on the new version and link the two articles together.  I didn't bother reading that whole argument up there by the way.

Anyway, how can anybody really know what the highest score is for the original Geometry Wars? They could send in a picture of the screen, but they could always digitally modify it. Or modify the data in their memory unit and load it into their Xbox to upload a new high score. BirdValiant 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * True, I just left it because at the time I figured if someone could put the entire Dead or Alive series into one article (which was ridiculous), then this too could cover both games. And I didn't really like the idea of putting the high scores in to begin with.  It requires quite a bit of maintainence and as you said is easily susceptible to vandalism.  But I wont change it. --Chroniclev 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Grid Wars article
Now that the game was pulled because Bizarre asked the developer to, Grid Wars has recieved wide media coverage, and I believe notable enough for its own article. I created the article and listed several sources. --SevereTireDamage 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tempest
Is it comparable to Tempest rather than spaces invaders ? Rich  Farmbrough 13:17 14  March 2006 (UTC).

I'd imagine that the reference is to graphical style - certainly the original Geometry Wars owes a debt to Tempest, and Retro Evolved's neon is reminiscent of Jeff Minter's Tempest 2000 and 3000. --130.119.248.11 12:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems more like Space Duel to me...

-- 72 .91. 214.104 (Contribs|talk) 14:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

flOw
This link would seem to justify inclusion of a mention of the similarity between the two games, yes? There are probably others, but the signal-to-noise on my google search was pretty high, since I don't play either game console. -- nae'blis 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About the only reasons I can think of why flOw and Geometry Wars would have any similarity to one another are that there's some passing resemblance between the player's "character" in both games, and that each game is widely considered the "download of choice" for its respective console. Otherwise, the games are not very similar at all. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions
OK, there are 2 versions of this game: There is no "Geometry Wars: Retro" version before Retro Evolved. -- ⁪ffroth 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Geometry Wars- in project gotham racing and I think XBOX live arcade maybe
 * 2) Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved- in XBOX 360 arcade, Steam, and MSN games

Also there is the Wii and DS versions entitled Geometry Wars Galaxies...76.224.11.97 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Asteroids
The game plays a lot like Asteroids. 76.126.35.84 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, this game is more like Robotron 2084. 2 joysticks, move & shoot, and a whole lot of waves of baddies. 68.0.226.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Split discussion: Galaxies
Since I didn't see a topic on this page for discussing splitting Geometry Wars: Galaxies into its own article, I'll start it. I support this move, since Galaxies is a superset of Retro Evolved and introduces many new gameplay features not found in the original Geometry Wars. Basic gameplay is the same, but there are enough notable differences between the two games to warrant making a new article for this release. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here to read an article specifically for Geometry Wars Galaxies, which doesn't exist at this time, so I support your move. I'll be glad to help with the article once you get it started. Modul8r (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since this discussion has been open for 10 days and only received one comment, I'm going to go ahead and perform the split. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking action on that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I somehow missed this thread, but for what it's worth I endorse with the split. In the final analysis, they're different games, after all. Xihr (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

red circles (black holes) = enemies?
are these really considered "enemies" ? xenocidic (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Galaxies manual, they are. They can kill you, they move toward you (albeit slowly), and they release smaller and much faster enemies if they get too large.  Sounds like the definition of an enemy to me. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Two articles for between Geometry Wars and Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved?
The article is kind of confusing. The article seems to mix information on GW and GW:RE.

Perhaps a Geometry Wars Series article is in order?

Wageslave (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They were originally separate and were merged together, hence the mish-mash. Here we go in circles again ... Xihr (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Split discussion: Series article
I propose that we split this article out into a series article, since there are enough official games in the series now to enable such a thing. This article, in its current state, tries to cover the original Geometry Wars minigame in PGR 2, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved, and Geometry Wars: Waves, as well as provide summary coverage for Geometry Wars: Galaxies and Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2. I think that, in terms of notability and content potential, we could repurpose this article specifically for Retro Evolved and move the rest of the content into a general article about the series.

Current releases:
 * Geometry Wars (minigame in PGR2)
 * Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved (XBLA, PC) -- cover here.
 * Geometry Wars: Evolved (Mobile)
 * Geometry Wars: Waves (minigame in PGR4)
 * Geometry Wars: Galaxies (Wii/DS) -- already in its own article.
 * Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 (XBLA) -- already in its own article.

Proposal:
 * Create a series article to cover the whole Geometry Wars series at a summary level.
 * Summarize the common elements of gameplay in the series article.
 * Fully cover Geometry Wars, Evolved (mobile), and Waves in the series article.
 * Briefly summarize Retro Evolved, Galaxies and Retro Evolved 2 in series article, with references to the main articles.
 * Move this article to Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved and focus the article specifically on this game.
 * Redirect Geometry Wars to the series article to serve as a disambiguation page.

Lemme know what you think. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, it has become such an important series (reintroduction of vector & abstract graphics, kick starting XBLive, and now on 4 platforms (xb180,360, wii, ds) it should be split and expanded with a properly sourced section over the influence it has had Romanista (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have created an entry on Geometry Wars: Waves. -Leroy


 * Since I haven't seen any opposition to this yet, I'll start setting up the stubs for the new articles:


 * Geometry Wars (series)
 * Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved
 * ...hmm, guess that's all we need.


 * Also, I'd suggest that we probably don't need a separate article on Waves, since AFAIK it's just another minigame with only a relatively small amount of difference from other games in the series. Let's examine that once this split is done and see if it shouldn't just be merged with the series article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading info on the PC games
"A new version, Geometry Wars: Evolved, has been produced for mobile phones,[2] and a version has also been released for Windows Vista, as well as a reduced-price Windows XP release on the Steam content delivery network." - that is misleading as it suggests the PC game as called "Geometry Wars: Evolved" when actually it is a port of "Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved", which is identical to the PC version except it doesn't have achievements. Note, also, that the steam version IS compatible with Vista, even though the game's site recommends the msn version for Vista users. Skip1337 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we probably just need better wording for that section. The whole thing is a mess, though - see the split discussion just above here for a proposal on how to improve the overall article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MSN version gone?
I tried to find the MSN Games version of Geometry Wars, but for some reason, it seems like the game was removed from their website. Can anyone confirm this? General Heed (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Hello General Heed! Tt seems that they deleted the game from their website but I found a demo of the game! Here's the link: https://www.gamepressure.com/download.asp?ID=14842. Hope that fixes your problem! -Jkimaster11 {talk}-33.45 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved - PC differences
Apparently some features were removed for the PC release, this needs to be added to the article.--Craigboy (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)