Talk:Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game)/Archive 1

Launch Problems
Instead of mass deleting all the references to Warhawk's launch problems why don't we actually discuss their validity in true wikipedia fashion. My argument for including the launch problems is that Warhawk's release is actually a historical event for the video game industry. Never before has the majority purchases of a retail game occured through a digital storefront particularly at the retail price of $40.

Launch problems definitely need to be listed, but speculation and complaints based upon several forum citations should not be used to verify these problems. Current verified and well knowns problems can be put into 2 basic categories: 1.) Difficulty connecting to games 2.) Ranks and rewards not functioning correctly Capnmonkey 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Capnmonkey 09/14/07

Also for all the PS3 owners out there, they are definitely entitled to know about the massive problems with the game prior to considering it's purchase (and playing multihour sessions resulting in nothing but fustration, and awesome fun!). This wikipedia entry helps give them a fair view of what they will be experiencing in the launch version of the game. Especially for a digital game that cannot be resold or returned. Furthermore, this is another prime example of the "fix-it-in-the-next-patch" culture that Sony is beginning to develop a reputation for, and discussing these issues will hopefully make future releases less prone to such launch problems.

I have to disagree that warhawk is suffering "massive problems". Sony matches are easy to find and join, and the game is 100% playable as intended. I would rate the reward and ranking system being unreliable as "severe" at worst, and have not tested it in the last 24 hours to see if it is still not functioning as of latest patch/firmware. So, until I get outvoted that a ranking system not functioning is a "massive problem" I think that we should restrict weasel words and such in the Launch Problems section and refrain using words like "Major Launch Problems", "Massive Problems", "Playing multihour sessions resulting in nothing but frustration". Capnmonkey 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Capnmonkey, 09/14/07

Finally, I want to also point out there is a lot of rumor and speculation going on right now that more than half of Incognito's development team left the company and specifically the Warhawk project in the final months before release. While I have held off from including the information in the wiki article (the game's problems can most certainly be verified, the Icognito rumor not yet) if more sources come forward with the information, and the Warhawk problem persist for weeks further, it will definitely need to begin to be included. RUMOR LINKS: http://www.n4g.com/News-66206.aspx --- http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7734923&postcount=6958

Warhawk is shaping into a case study that future video game generations can use when studying the effects of digital distribution on the Gaming Industry.

I definitely agree, there should be some more mention of these problems, if anyone actually knows what's going on with the servers it should be on included in this article. Not just speculation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.4.117 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And SONY, if you don't want mentions of a game's launch problems on it's wikipedia page then DON'T LAUNCH A GAME UNTIL IT'S READY TO BE PLAYED BY YOUR CUSTOMERS.

I think the problems should be included even after they have fixed them. They are relevant for sony, the developer and other games. I even think that i shold be mentioned that in the game there is a "annoncement" page, and nothing much has been mentioned here. There seems to be a bad attitude from the developer and sony. Vertigo500 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC) You other users should sign your comments with four ~, then your name and the date is added.

There are many players that experience freezing while playing the game. It happens to me a couple of times a week. That should be listed. Vertigo500 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article certantly does not adhere to a neutral point of view, the article uses flowery language (nice?) and does not mention any of the reaction to it's demonstration at E3 2006. Overall this reads more like the PS3 forums than an encyclopedic article. THIS NEEDS A MAJOR REWRITE.

boyinabox

-fixed.

"Dubious" comparisons with C64 game
Please discuss this matter at Talk:Warhawk (Firebird game). Thank you. Fourohfour 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer
does the game have a multiplayer option? Sam ov the blue sand 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The game will only be online multiplayer, but you will be able to have multiple players using one console in splitscreen. There has been no confirmation of how many people can be splitscreen. Playstationdude 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

warh in the eu 28august r?
warh in the eu 28 august r?

Neutrality Disputed
I'm sorry but 1up users are not exactly a reliable source. And PSM/OXM thing is very biased. d.m.an 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, we will remove the all "user" reviews, but please do not add sentences about your concern on the actual article again. Also, what do you mean about the PSM/OXM thing? --Playstationdude 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

EU/NA multiplayer
I have a question. If one buys the North American version (because one wants the bluetooth headset but does not want to wait until the much later EU disc release), will one still be able to play against EU owners of the disc release? With the NA edition of Motorstorm, this was not the case. -- Anonymous 09:00, 30 August 2007 (GMT+1)


 * I know you can play against all regions, but I am not sure you can play the US disc on a EU PS3. Maybe User:Mawfive knows, he was in the beta and told me he was getting the game. I would tell you, but I am not getting it till a couple of days.--Playstationdude 12:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Left Aligned Images
The two left aligned imaged near the top cover text and do not match the section to which they are referring. I tried to fix this but was unsuccessful.--Terrx 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem is only on firefox browsers. I see it fine on internet explorer. I asked one of the guys in the history list if he could fix it, but I don't know what happened.--Playstationdude 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment
Summarised, this article is a good start. It has several large problems, which not only decrease article quality (and therefore rating), but also prevent me from going more in-depth with my assessment. I invite any editor to seek re-assessment after the following points have been addressed:
 * Several lists, though in prose form, should not be present at all. These are the maps, vehicles, turrets and weapons lists. If there is nothing to write besides a list about these subjects, do not write anything at all.
 * What do you suggest that we do with those sections?Playstationdude 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The references miss necessary information. is a useful tool to add this information. One of the links is dead, too.
 * Image:Warhawkservers.jpg has the wrong copyright information. It is not a screenshot of a computer game, and where did the picture come from?
 * Working on itPlaystationdude 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playstationdude (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional Content section needs sources.
 * Fixed it.--Playstationdude 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vertigo500 10:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A "features" section reads like an advertisement, or a list. Make a gameplay section instead - see the featured articles in the WP:VG project for good examples. (e.g. FFX)
 * Price information is generally not done in Wikipedia articles, unless particularly relevant.
 * Agree with Vertigo. Playstationdude 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Start class (good beginning) and Mid importance (acclaimed title). User:Krator (t c) 15:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead section is too short.

X-play
Just wanted to let people know that the review for Warhawk will be on X-play tomorrow.--Playstationdude 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the review, It got 4 out of five 72.38.5.230 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation in the Lead
Responding to your post in WP:LEAD(talk), I am here to assist. What's up? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created a self-revert edit of a variation of the Lead that avoids citations, placing the citation further on in the following section. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don't know anything to add to the lead section and the guy above about the good article suggestions said something about cites that I don't understand. Thanks for answering fast, your project is cool.--Playstationdude 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's take a look at what Nehrams2020 said:
 * He is saying that the Lead should better summarize the article. A really easy way to do this is to read WP:LEAD. After that, here is a quick way to start the summarization process. Take each section and write up to three sentences summarizing it (use less if you don't have a lot int he section). Arrange the section summaries in order, and >poof!< you have a working Lead. Now realize that, as you add new material, or delete material, the Lead is going to change as well. This is a good thing, as the Lead is a quick summary of the article. Since a lot of the cited material is on the actual article, you don't need to provide citations in the Lead. So make sure you don't use the exact wording of what you are summarizing - speak in generalities. That is the hard and fast way to do a Lead summary. The tricky part is to make it engaging. That comes with time and by working with your fellow editors to find something everyone thinks is cool enough.
 * The link he provided you is a bit more tricky, WP:CITET, or citation templates. If you get a source from tv, or news or a book or a magazine, the citation used to create it is different, just as it would be in the bibliography of a term paper or whatnot. This las tpart takes some geting used to, so you might want to copy that particular link to your user page, since you will likely end up using it a lot (I keep a list of frequently-used links on my User Page - feel free to check it out).
 * You are going to have to fix the rationale (the reason why the image should be allowed) for the images, or they are all going to deleted. Take a look at the Video Games Featured Articles. These are the best artcles to date in Wikipedia on the very subject that you writing. Looking at some of them (I like to work on film, so I have looked at all of the FA articles for film; you may want to eventually do the same) would help you understand what they share in common, and try to put your article in the same basic format. As well, you can see the rationale for the images used there. They've already been checked out, and they work. Just make sure you only copy the formats that specifically address the type of screenshot you are using. Make sure to change the names to reflect that the rationale is for Warhawk, and not Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon or Supreme Commander. Here is an example of a screenshot image used in SupCom.
 * Hope that helps some more. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Playstationdude 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So...did you want the suggested Lead statement I created before? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I'm not getting stuff done. I've been very busy lately.--Playstationdude 01:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
Images lack fair use rationales. That is grounds for immediate FISSION MAILED for the GA process. Please add them ASAP so that the real reviewer doesn't fail the article on those grounds alone. hbdragon88 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Err... that's not exactly true. Lack of fair use rationales is a reason to fail a GA, but not an immediate fail. If this article had no other problems (and I have no idea whether or not it does, I haven't reviewed it), the article would be put on hold for a period of seven days to give the editors time to address the issue. Cheers, CP 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So then it was a criteria back in July, or LaraLove misspoke during hte Super Princess Peach GAR. hbdragon88 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely one of those two. I've only been doing GA reviews since September, though, so I'm not sure which one. Cheers, CP 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"War (space) Hawk" Redirect
Reginmund has reverted the redirect of "warhawk" to go to "war (space) hawk". If you wish to, please discuss here -- Vdub49 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ver. 1.1 Patch
I just got it today, it seems overall faster, clearer picture and more stable. However I still see the ???? for the ping. -- Vdub49 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg
Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warhawkheadset.jpg
Image:Warhawkheadset.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ps3warhawkbox.jpg
Image:Ps3warhawkbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore this it has been resolved. -- Vdub49 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

october has come so why has it not update yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.12.68 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warhawkscreenshot.jpg
Image:Warhawkscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the tags
This article resembles more of a game guide than a GA article. Does the average reader need to know all the details of patches 1 and 2? Why should the average reader need to know about Quad "???" ping and Internal stat padder protection? What are they? Too much of a list. Write in prose. Why are all the weapons listed in detail, a machine gun is a machine gun, a tank is a tank, unless there is some unique property to them, it is redundant to list them out over again. While PSM is the lowest score, there are at least 3 other sites giving it a 70% (which is not "very" positive). Why are announcements in this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a press release site. The lead-in section is also insufficient to give the average reader a summarized knowledge of the article's contents.220.255.4.136 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page, but you never responded. I waited a while and you hadn't helped any. What now?--Playstationdude (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am taking it off again, until decides to talk.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While those tags were a little excessive, there is some truth behind them. For example, the tag about "buzzwords" in the updates section is certainly true. You can't expect the average reader to understand phrases like "Max Clan limit", "Viral Rank-up bug", or "Quad '????' Ping display bug". I question whether this even needs to be covered at all. A good rule of thumb for video game articles—if something is only of use or interest to someone who is playing the game, it typically isn't suitable for the article. Will the general reader care that the server-side 1.1 patch fixed "Time-in-vehicle" stats?  Pagra shtak  21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll fix it. I'm just frustrated at the guy for saying the article is all wrong, but not actually doing anything!--Playstationdude (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed the unknown terms. Anything else you may suggest. I really don't mind suggestions, because I really do want to improve this article to the best it can be.--Playstationdude (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no time limit in a Wiki discussion. However ignoring questions and reverting associated edits without reasons or answers is a breach of etiquette. This article has clear violations of WP:MOS, WP:IINFO, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VG/GL. Did it even go through assessment as a Video Game before being thrown into GAC? It's still rated as a Start-class, and many problems pointed out by Krator still remain in this article, made even worse with more lists. Development is nothing more than discussion on prices and network reports. It should be talking about the development process of the game. Gameplay is too detailed, with many content lifted from the official site itself. While it ain't presented as a list, it's still listing out excessive items in the game. Updates/Expansions section is purely relevant only to the gamers themselves. The arbiters is a quote section. With the many reviews listed in the table, the Reception section is amazingly short, and nothing more than a list of quotes. Lastly, point out a rule that I must correct this article just because I pointed out what's wrong with the article itself. 220.255.4.136 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just the buzzwords, it is also "why should the reader know about such things". As a suggestion, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and request for an experienced editor who knows the game and is interested to help out. 220.255.4.136 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, place your comments at the bottom. Second, I am a experienced editor who knows the game and is interested to help out. Third, why won't you help out if you are so concerned about the page? It got its assessment a long time ago from the Video Game Project. I'm working on it, but I expect you help also.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I condensed and made the gameplay section more nuetral. I will put it up for reassessment on the video game wikiproject. I will be working on it some more over time. How do you think the reviews section is bad? It looks like a healthy paragraph to me.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed updates section.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)