Talk:Ms. Pac-Man/Archive 1

Article title
The article should probably be at Ms. Pac-Man (hyphenated like Pac-Man), which currently redirects here. --Mrwojo 00:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say the same thing. --Pagrashtak 19:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

World Record
Heard somewhere that a new world record had been set in ms. pac-man (just over the previous record of 920,000 pts.), perhaps that should be included? --85.220.16.60 19:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Pete Rutherford Is the Ms.Pac Man Champion of Lake County Florida. He received this title on Jan.14 2010

Dates For Ports
DON'T delete the dates. Anyone knows that I found thouse dates on a link?
 * Please delete any dates added by User:Elil (IP: 68.100*). Whatever source he's using is unreliable. Mirror Vax 14:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Character Sprite
Can anybody confirm or deny the existence of a contest held by Midway in 1980 or '81 for the cosmetic design of Ms. Pac-Man? In short, who "invented" this iconic character? --Iason 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I confirm IasOn 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

hides, ms pacman
hello, can anybody tell me where the hide is in the act-3 junior field of ms pacman. and also how to get them in that hide. a link or a web site and even a e-mail is good.

any info will do thanx

ramon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.10.16.52 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Milton
There was a pizza place near Hertford, North Carolina that had a Ms. Pac-Man machine where the orange ghost was named Milton. I saw this myself in January of 1998. I have no idea if it is still there. --Jnelson09 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kansas Diner
I am deleting the bit about the blue mice bootleg found in a Kansas diner. It has been under "needs citation" for a few months now, and I don't think anybody is going to find a source. By the same logic, please don't add the pizza parlor with the orange ghost named Milton. None of this is verifiable or incredibly notable, and this article doesn't need a list of bootleg games. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of high scores section
I boldly removed the high-scores section after seeing another edit-revert of "new" high scores. Basically, this section is totally unencyclopedic, it's difficult to verify (and TwinGalaxies isn't the only site that records video-game high scores), and it seems unnecessarily prone to being vandalized with fake and/or unverifiable high scores. It's better to just not have this section here - if deemed necessary, we can mention TwinGalaxies and its role in recording high scores, in a single line somewhere else in the article. But trying to keep track of all the official high scores is really beyond the scope of Wikipedia (see WP:NOT). &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that the first time a female ever scores on this site, the names are promptly removed. If you want verification on the scores ASK for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.54.24 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts
Does anybody have information on the ghosts in Ms. Pac-Man? The names were Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Sue, I think ... (Sue having replaced Clyde from Pac-Man).

You are correct

Blinky mostly chases/follows you, Pinky mostly ambushes/attack by suprise, Inky is the most scared/dose not really chase, and Sue is the dumbest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.188.6 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bugs in The Game
Ms. Pacman does not have 255 playable boards. While the range checking bug in the "fruit" drawing code which causes the split-screen to occur in pacman also exists in mspac, other bugs cause the game to crash long before screen 255. Essentially, there's no range checking on the table lookups that determine the map and ghost behavior for a certain level, so around level 143(?) garbage values are read, resulting in a bad pointer to the map, making the game unplayable.


 * No, it gets weird before that. At level 132 there's a bug in the area just under one of the energisers. When the ghosts pass over that they slow down. And at level 134 the whole screen gets flipped over! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Pac-Man release date discussion
The recent edits piqued my interest in sorting this out. Now, the coinop.org reference is completely unreliable and of course unusable. Digging further though, I found two reliable sources - 1) the actual Parts and Operations manual has January of '82. The copyright info filed at the U.S. Copyright Office is also the following:


 * Type of Work: 	Visual Material
 * Registration Number / Date: 	PA0000140275 / 1982-06-25
 * Title: 	Ms. Pac-Man.
 * Description: 	1 videogame.
 * Notes: 	Based on the prev. pub. audiovisual works Crazy Otto & Pac-Man.
 * Deposit consists of 1 videocassette & description (3 p.) deposited in lieu of videogame.
 * Copyright Claimant: 	Bally Midway Manufacturing Company
 * Date of Creation: 	1981
 * Date of Publication: 	1982-01-13
 * Authorship on Application: 	Bally Midway Manufacturing Company, employer for hire.
 * Previous Registration: 	Pac-Man prev. reg. 13Nov80, PA 83-768.
 * Basis of Claim: 	New Matter: visual changes.


 * Other Title: 	Crazy Otto
 * Pac-Man
 * Names: 	Bally Midway Manufacturing Company

Which gives the publication date as 1-13-1982. Now, the U.S. Copyright Office defines publication as: "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public."

It U.S. Copyright Office also correctly lists 5-22-1980 for the publication date of Pac-Man in comparison. So given that, I would say Ms. Pac-Man was put out 1-13-1982. Let me know what you guys think before anything further is done with the article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's interesting. If we can use the copyright office listing as our reference, then I'd be happy to support the 1982 date, since theoretically the game couldn't be released to the public before the application to the copyright office went through.  (At least, if Bally/Midway wanted to put a copyright symbol on it.)  We generally don't have reliable dates for release on games prior to around 1990 or so, so if we have something like the copyright office to use as a backup, I'd consider that far more reliable than coinop.org . &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What kinda clinches using the Copyright Office reference (besides being a generally reliable source) is that they define "Publication date" as the date first released to the public, rather than as the date a copyright was first filed for, was granted, or other possible interpretations. The Pac-Man publication date in the Copyright Office record also matches up what we found through other reliable sources, which is that 5-22-1980 date, so that's also what kinda clinches it for me because it shows their definition is being followed.  The Copyright database is actually a wealth of info, with publication dates for every classic video game, packaging, related merchandise such as comics or tv show episodes, etc.  We wouldn't be able to do direct links, because the search system is session based.  But the full filing info including registration number is easily cite able. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with using the Copyright Office as the reference.Asher196 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that all the drama is over, I'm thinking we can move forward and use the Copyright Office reference and date. I'll try and go through other articles and update dates with their Copryight Office listing as well. For anyone that wants to look them up as well and add them, be careful not to use box art copyright entries and game artwork entries by mistake. Those get copyrights as well, but the publication date on those may not match the actual release date of the game itself. Boxes and game related art are sent out as promos to dealers, distributors, press, etc. before the actual release of the game both back then and now. For classic game entries you'll usually see a submission of a video tape, code, description, or physical cartridge. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pactionary
I'm going to go ahead and remove the link to pactionary.com. All that's left, according to google, is a sad myspace page. There were some pages at Internet Way Back Machine, but they were scant. Out of curiosity, Do Wikipedians often link to the Way Back Machine? --Cheeseball701 (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New info in Reception
The following text was recently removed from the section "for being just stupid": In 2007 Games.net placed Ms. Pacman at #1 on their list of "Top Ten Disturbingly Sexual Game Characters" noting her "full-on drag queen getup" and apparent nudity.

Have you all seen how she is portrayed on the arcade machine? She is very disturbingly sexual. I have always been bothered by this and I think I can say with certainty that this belongs in the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That "info" was stupid. I don't care what that web site says, the legacy of Ms. Pac Man is not that of a nude drag queen. Asher196 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture section
Looking through the section, I found that most of the sources were of the primary variety. I would like to remove the entries that don't have reliable secondary sources. Any objections?--Asher196 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already guidelines for these sections within video games articles. A lot of the disputed entries are references within television programmes, which the guidelines state are to be referenced using the cite episode template (and that using that template is sufficient that secondary sourcing is not required), and that each "worth mention" entry ought to be no more than one or two sentences.  The course of action in relation to uses in television conforming to these guidelines is clear: entries within this section that are not referenced using the cite episode template should either have this added, else the entry be removed.  The section as a whole ought to be prose, rather than a list, also. --Adam J Hepton (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do the project guidelines supercede WP:RS which clearly states "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."--Asher196 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my apologies. You're absolutely right.  There exists the facility to add external URLs as well as Wikipedia articles to the cite episode template, so that's absolutely what should happen. --Adam J Hepton (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Instead us continuing to go back and forth with adding/removing Ms. Pac-Man from Category:Namco let me explain why I'm removing it. Originally I added all of the Pac-Man arcade games which Namco made or had the rights to the Namco games category but another user (see Talk:Pac-Man removed them due to Category:Namco games being large and listed them in Category:Pac-Man which is a subcategory of the Namco games category. If that is to stand then it is inconsistent for only Ms. Pac-Man to be in the Namco category when Pac-Man, Super Pac-Man, Pac & Pal, Pac-Land and Pac-Mania are not especially considering that Ms. Pac-Man was created by GCC and Bally/Midway, not Namco.

As for rights ownership, while Namco owns the overall Pac-Man property rights they do not own the specific rights to the games created by Bally/Midway: Ms. Pac-Man, Pac-Man Plus, Baby Pac-Man and Jr. Pac-Man. Namco ended up having to pay GCC for producing the Pac-Man Anniversary Arcade Machines and other uses of Ms. Pac-Man which is why they are no longer including it in recent compilations. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ms. Pac-Man. 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/20060517190713/http://www.jakkstvgames.com/mspacman.html to http://www.jakkstvgames.com/mspacman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602004330/http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/m/mspacmanxboxlivearcade/ to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/m/mspacmanxboxlivearcade/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918074036/http://ipod.namcogames.com/game_detail.php?gid=2 to http://ipod.namcogames.com/game_detail.php?gid=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Acts 1-4
There are new intermissions between the maze changes:

"Act 1 - They Meet": Pac-Man is chased by Inky, Ms. Pac-Man is chased by Pinky; the ghosts bang heads, the Pac-Men escape, and a heart appears between them. "Act 2 - The Chase": Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man chase each other quickly across the screen five times, with more speed each time. "Act 3 - Junior": A stork drops off a bundle containing a tiny Pac-Man (later reused in the attract mode for Jr. Pac-Man). (There are some manuals and websites that report a final "Act 4" that will play if the score is very high, but this is unconfirmed).

Can we get a confirmation if there is an Act 4?

== There is NO "Act 4" ==

The are only three interstitial animations in the original arcade game: They Meet, The Case, and Junior. I worked for Namco on porting their classic arcade titles for mobile, and I've seen disassemblies of the source code. There's no 4th animation. MrNeutronSF (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Act 4 does exist, but only on the Tengen ports to the NES and Genesis  Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6aVdosZqzg&t=28m14s Hope that clears things up

Ghosts Become Rats
Has anyone else besides me seen a version of Ms. Pac-Man where the ghosts turn into rats or mice when Ms. Pac-Man eats a power pellet? I distinctly remember going to a diner on the Kansas-Nebraska border about 15 years ago or so and seeing a Ms. Pac-Man game cabinet where the ghosts turned into blue-and-yellow rats. --72.25.20.233 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Reception section isn't
As with many modern articles, the reviews and the reception listed are recent ones and not those which occurred at the time of the original release. Furthermore, these are reviews of ports/adaptions and not the original game.MrNeutronSF (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. It's a little unusual, but I made "Reception" be a subsection of "Ports." (If there was reception info about the coin-op, then I'd keep a top-level "Reception" section with a "Ports" subsection of that.) Dgpop (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Release Date
So, I'm a bit conflicted on what to do regarding the release date in this article.

As mentioned in an archived post, the US Copyright Office's Public Catalog lists the Date of Publication as January 13, 1982 and the Date of Creation as 1981.

The game itself lists its copyright as 1981, and Bandai-Namco prefers to use this currently, as indicated by their listing Ms. Pac-Man under 1981 in the history tab of their official Pac-Man website. They've also released a combination Galaga/Ms. Pac-Man 20th anniversary arcade machine in the past, implying that they consider them both 1981 releases.

Conversely, an article entitled "Why is Pac-Man Grinning? He's Sharing His Quarters" by Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times dated Thursday, February 4th, 1982 describes a press conference that Wednesday (February 3rd, 1982) in which Ms. Pac-Man was publicly shown for the first time. I decided to transcribe the article, as the source is behind a paywall:

"No man is an island - Adam    had Eve, Antony his Cleo-     patra, Batman his Batwom-     an, and now the king of the video     games, Pac-Man, has a queen, Ms.     Pac-Man.       Dubbed the first lady of video     games, Ms. Pac-Man made her de-     but Wednesday in typical show-     business style at a press conference     at the Castle Park Entertainment     Center in Sherman Oaks. The game     is expected to appear in many video     arcades during the next few weeks.       Video games have so far attracted     a predominantly male clientele, but     what's the fun of having the guys     without the dolls?       'We've noticed a recent trend in     our game pavilions that indicates a     trememndous female acceptance of     the Pac-Man game,' says Castle     Park marketing chief Michael      Leone. 'I guess it was only natural     for Midway, the manufacturer of     the game, to introduce a Ms. Pac- Man.' To woo the potential female video addict, Ms. Pac-Man is outfitted with more fashion wrinkles than a    new Halston. Pac-Man is a homely little yellow critter on a screen, but his female video counterpart is re- splendent in red lips and eyelashes, with a bow above her brow. And there's even more to the Pac-Persons. If you win at Ms. Pac-Man by    wiping out two or more mazes of               Please see PAC-MAN'S, Page 6"

These dates (1981, January 13, 1982, and February 3, 1982) obviously can't all be the release date we use for the article. My main question is whether we should consider the development/copyright date, date of publication, or date of public debut the "release date" for this article. I don't know what the precedent would be in this instance.

Regardless, would it be best to include the other dates as well in the article for clarification's sake? It seems like relevant information, but I want input before making any changes to the article.

--Pacack (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * After discussing this topic with PresN on the talk page for WikiProject Video games, we've agreed to change the release date on this article to simply "February 1982." The source which we currently use for the release date was itself sourcing the article mentioned above, and the only information the article provides is that it was made available to the general public a few weeks after this press release. The general availability date is the current standard used for software releases, so the date can't get more precise than that unless we find new sources.
 * I also hope to make some general improvements to this article over time, as it seems to be a bit of a mess considering the importance of the game. Bear with me if that's slow progress, but also please refrain from reverting the page to suggest that February 3rd is the precise date of release, as that is inaccurate. Pacack (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)