Template talk:Need for Speed series

Era division
I don't think the division of the series on eras is done correctly. There is no reasoning behind the current order.

The first era spans from 1994 to 2002 = 8 years The second era 2003 - 2008 = 5 years and the third era 2009 to 2011 = 3 years And there was something revolutionary between The Run and Most Wanted that resulted in a new era of NFS games? How so? what?

Personally this list is awful. Not only does it not have any reason behind the way it's divided, but you've thrown in World, an MMO game which has nothing to do with the annual NFS games (the main-line releases), Nitro, which is not part of the main releases, and was released for Wii only. Why didn't you put the gameboy advance specific games here then too? or smartphone nfs games? This is just awful. And you have listed Shift 2 which even dropped the NFS name altogether, and is a mere branch, a digression off the main line of series. Each of these games were paired with main games in their respective years: 2009 - main game = SHIFT, side-release = Nitro 2010 - main game = Hot Pursuit, side-release = World 2011 - main game = The Run, side-release = Shift 2: Unleashed

I would personally add an MMO category, drop Nitro from the list, and move Shift 2 to spin-offs. Shift 2 to the NFS series is much like Age of Mythology is to the AOE series. It released on all the major systems as any other main-line game, but due to its content and as it shares the release year with The Run, it should count as a spin-off.

And drop the whole current era thing. Rivals BELONGS to the current era. if you want to consider 6 games an era, then you have a new era starting with this year, 2014's release. Shift->Rivals spans 6 games in the main line, and Underground->Undercover spans 6 games as well, and so does NFS I -> Hot Pursuit 2.

I think it should be done like this. If no one responds soon, I'll change it to this. If you don't like it, revert the changes, but post some reasoning behind that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.220.59 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, Shift->Rivals spans 5 games. one game is missing for a cycle of 6 games. Anyway nothing drastic changed from Run to Most Wanted in order to start a new era. the game uses the same features Hot Pursuit in 2010 introduced, same with Rivals, which developed the idea even deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.220.59 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Since no one replied complaining, I've regrouped the titles.

First era is populated with the first 6 games in the series. All have a similar theme, being "untouchable supercars on scenic drives, with accent on races and/or hot pursuits".

Second era is highlighted by a street-racing theme: Mostly Affordable sports cars, with car customization being realized in depth, and additionally these games all feature story driven campaign modes.

The Third era begins with Shift, which drops a plot, introduces realism, reintroduces simulation elements. Hot Pursuit reintroduces first era's theme and further expans the franchise with multi-player being the talking point of the games. The Run further reintroduces second era's plot-driven campaign mode. Most Wanted intuitively feels like an extension of Hot Pursuit, as does Rivals. The whole era is filled with a "reintroductory" theme and begins to form some sort of consistency between Hot Pursuit, Most Wanted, and Rivals. The whole era also had the NFS license thrown from one company to another, and features different developers from Shift to Rivals. The era is marked with this sort of inconsistency and a formation of a new multiplayer theme inspired by the first generation's "formula" and minimal custmization and plot from the 2nd generation of games.

I think that, because the whole era features inconsistency from 2009 to 2015, it would be natural to group the games this way, and leave room for one more game to round up a 6-title era as the case was before.

If nothing extraordinary happens from 2014's release to 2015's release then I suggest the criteria for an era be 6 games, as there has been chronological inconsistency in the past.

Shift 2:Unleashed, Nitro rebranded as spin-offs due to being "pairing releases" with the main titles in their respective years. Additionally Shift 2:Unleashed can be considered series branching, and Nitro was not available for any of the major system that year.

World and Motor City Online rebranded as MMO games. ..which is what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.220.59 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Template Sub-headers
Looking at the gradual removal of all the sub-sections in the template, I must ask: what was wrong with it? Now it's just one long chain of titles, and eventually someone's going to decide "Hey, this is confusing; we'll need to break them up again". --Scottie theNerd 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, and I agree with you. But you have to ask those who made the changes. --MrStalker 09:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Future title + Locations
Why can't all NFS-related articles be in the same template as before? Is this some kind of new Wikipedia-guideline to remove all links to articles that some may find "unneccesary"?

"(no name + no release date + no playable demonstration = no substance)"

I say: Much intresting information about the development = very much substance. --MrStalker 09:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. As long as the article exists and details about the next game are confirmed, there's no reason not to include it in the template. --Scottie theNerd 10:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I mean. Same with the locations I think. --MrStalker 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So if no one else has anything to say should we say that we put NFS XI back? --MrStalker 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I declared above: as long as the article exists, it should be in the template. If there's any argument over how much substance NFS XI has, put the article up for an AFD instead. --Scottie theNerd 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no active Wikipedia guidelines that exclude "less"-related articles from templates. So I say that we put locations back as well. --MrStalker 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Instead of continually reverting, Man in Black, why don't you comment here first? --Scottie theNerd 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has no name. It has no release date. It has never been shown in playable form. The article is nothing more than speculation on a fansite and an FHM poll about a purely cosmetic part of the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The release date will be november 2007, as it always have been. And there is no such thing as speculations, all information are based on an interview with an EA representative by NFSGame.net. --MrStalker 08:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the "information" is speculation or direct from EA. There's no commentary in reliable sources independent of the games' creators or those with an interest in selling the game. There's no possibility for such commentary. It doesn't even have a name.


 * This is a very low bar. This far-off game doesn't meet it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if you're correct, so? The policy you created and now enforce are not yet Wikipedia standard. Have you ever considered asking everybody else before changing everything so it looks like you thinks? Btw, how much do you now about NFS? Have you played every game since 10 years back? Have you been involved in the NFS-community for 10 years? --MrStalker 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Who came up with an idea is not relevant to its merit. How do readers benefit from being directed to an article filled with speculation and promotional material? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect, but that is just so much bullshit. Oh, poor, poor readers, maybe they will get depressed and cry if some information aren't 100% correct. Give me a break. And yes, who made up the rules is very much relevant. You know, where I come from, we do not make our own rules, we follow those of the democracy. --MrStalker 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't disagree that the article is composed entirely of speculative and promotional material? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How many God damn times do I have to repeat myself?!? there is no such thing as speculations, all information are based on an interview with an EA representative by NFSGame.net. If you call that speculative and promotional, wtf isn't? --MrStalker 09:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A PR person speaking to a fansite for the product that PR rep is selling is promotional.


 * When someone independent of EA can actually evalute the subject, then it passes the "playable form" bar. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know where we disagree.

Is it...
 * 1) Need for Speed XI is (not) speculative and/or promotional?
 * 2) The standard for inclusion and exclusion of upcoming games does not effectively exclude articles composed only of speculative and promotional material?
 * 3) Articles composed entirely of speculative and/or promotional material should (not) be excluded from navigational templates?

Handwaving about policy tags and democracy and profanity and exclaimation points and such do little to clarify such points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just need to voice my opinion on NFS 11, I have to agree with A Man in P♟nk on the game's exclusion for the time being. The game lacks any substantial citations or notability at the moment to be considered for listing, compared to Duke Nukem Forever (which is notable for its long lasting delays) and Spore (for its well-publicized game engine and concept). Perhaps when something outstanding happens during the game's development, or a demo has been released, would it be suited to relist the article. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  09:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ╫


 * 1. Okey, let's just say I accept that.
 * 2. There is no standard yet.
 * 3. Yeah, that's may be it, they shouldn't be excluded.
 * OMG... --MrStalker 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If your only problem is that I proposed a solution to a problem, then went ahead and implemented that solution...well, all the satisfaction I can offer is that Wikipedia still isn't a bureaucracy. Otherwise, please pick one of "This article is not speculative/promotional," or "Speculative/promotional material should go in navboxes" and argue it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Acording to my own rules, interesting information that is relevant to the series goes above your stupid rules. But hey, whata heck, I've gotta thank you, A Man In Black, you've made me realize that english Wikipedia is no different from all other shitty sites out there. I will stop bothering you in your quest to impliment dictatorship. --MrStalker 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to Black: My initial concern was that the template was being altered before the removal of the article in question. As the article no longer exists in any substance, I have no qualms about keeping NFS XI off the template. And Stalker, take a chill pill. Making an article on Wikipedia isn't the end of the world. --Scottie theNerd 11:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okey, that may not have been the smartest thing I've said. Sorry about that. I'll blame strong will and bad sleep. :-[ --MrStalker 16:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

MrStalker: Your umbrella articles
Firstly, as I'm not sure why the template no longer features NFS-related articles, this isn't entirely directed at you. However, as you're the one starting umbrella articles, many of them aren't even needed. You're simply creating articles with brief summaries and linking to their main articles. The locations have little in common, the characters have little in common, and I don't think the Soundtrack article will survive an AfD if it came to it. If we include the NFS-related articles (locations, characters, etc.) in this template, we wouldn't need redundant umbrella articles. --Scottie theNerd 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't kill the messenger. I agree in most of what you're saying, you got to ask A Man In Black.

Hm, there are two ways I see we can do this. One is to create a general article rather than an umbrella article. The other is to replace the umbrella articles with a specific template, such as seen with Template:Grand Theft Auto series and Template:Grand Theft Auto locations. --Scottie theNerd 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not much to say generally about locations in the NFS series, so I think we go for the specific template. I'll get on it right away. --MrStalker 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I regretted not having a say in this, but would it be similarly effective if we used a category (i.e. Category:Need for Speed locations) to list locations? A template is not very practical for so few links. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ╫


 * People rarely look in the categories. The template works well. --MrStalker 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not discouraging the use of the template, but it just doesn't appear necessary at the moment because there are only three articles, and Category:Need for Speed locations is pretty much listing only these locales, with no long-term possibility that anything more specific will be added. A link to a category can do just about the same job as a template, but no actual coding is needed to list them, and is already available the moment the category is created. It's hardly logical to assume that people will not look into templates if a category link is available in the NFS series navbox, isn't it? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ╫


 * I see your point, but the template simply looks better and doesn't do any harm ;) MrStalker 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is to provide quick and easy access, which the template does. If a template isn't practical with a few links, a category won't even survive the deletion process. --Scottie theNerd 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't argue with that. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

Two titles misplaced?
Shouldn't Motor City Online be in the MMOG section. And shouldn't NFS Porsche Unleashed be in the "branded" section? A game full of Porsches only seems prety much "branded to me", duh (never mind did Porsche pay for that or no).

The new idea of splitting the games in sections depending on game type is very good but there is something missing... The whole template needs to be remaked again. The current one doesn't say about other MMOs like Motor City Online and Need for Speed: Top Speed, since they are in the "classic era" section, but couldn't the be in both? Also NFS Porsche should be in the "branded" section and also in classic era. The current template just doesn't allow that. There should be a first line on top on the template separating it in three (Classic era, Underground era and Current) and in the left side should be the game types as they are now. It should look something like the car brands templates (see for example the Ferrari one).

If nobody says nothing about it in a week I'll try doing it myself :) F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, "branded" in this template has nothing to do with a game using a certain set of cars, but they are part of a brand extension, that is they are actually not Need for Speed-games, they were just labeled so in certain markets to achieve higher sales.


 * The current section breakdown is based around the way the NFS-series has developed over the years. Up to Carbon (well up to Undercover really, but it's not unreasonable to assume development of Shift began before ProStreet released), we've had a single stream of titles from the same developer, with a distinct change in style between Hot Pursuit 2 and Underground (the so-called "The Fast and the Furious-effect"). If you look around at NFS fan-forums, you'll find two "fractions", if you wish, one favoring the old-school (classic), pre-Underground games and one favoring the later titles such as Most Wanted and Underground 2 (although nobody likes Undercover, really). Then, EA decided to the branch up the Need for Speed-series, into several sub-series, represented by the sub-sections Action, Arcade, MMO, and Simulation. Notably, all of these four sub-series has one confirmed title in development as of right now, all with their unique style. As such, I feel it's appropriate to make the distinction between the games of the past, i.e. the classic, and underground-eras, and the current model of four sub-series (although I'm unsure if World Online will get any MMO-sequels in the foreseeable future, perhaps it fits better under Action). As such, MCO fits perfectly as it now, and so does Porsche Unleashed. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 22:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But isn't MCO a MMO as well? Then why not put it in the "MMO" section as well (without removing it from the "classic" section)? – Nickin/ShifterBr  ( talk ) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just told you, because it's not part of the current generation of games. Besides, the name Motor City Online kinda speaks for itself. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved World Online to Action as it seems EA regards World Online to be primarily an action game rather than a MMO. Problemo solved. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 09:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot Pursuit 2
I reverted the most recent edit to the template which argued that Hot Pursuit 2 should have been in the Second Generation of NFS games as it was the first to appear on Sixth generation gaming consoles. While Hot Pursuit 2 was indeed the first NFS to appear on the PS2 and Xbox, the change in generation was the splintering of the community and jarring transition from racing in untouchable Supercars (eg. Lamborghini, Ferrari, Lotus, Jaguar to name brands) on open highways (and rarely the odd deliberately unrealistic urban environment *cough*Empire City*cough*Atlantica*cough*) to driving in cheaply available and primarily Japanese vehicles in urban environments that do a good job representing real cities. Essentially, a switch to the Street Racing theme which dominated until Shift (though Undercover with the complete change in development paradigm is the first in the Third Generation, don't change it). Jdenm8 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Brushed out the wrong games
I have edited the template to divide games into two basic categories: Main and secondary. Main games are games released on a consistent basis and usually had sequels/prequels. They all were released around November and are considered "big" games, as they were released to key systems at their time (PC/PS1 for Need for Speed I for instance, or PC/PS3/Xbox 360 for Most Wanted 2012, etc.). Secondary games feel more like spinoffs and don't follow the traditional norm: World is an MMO. Nitro was not released on any of the major consoles. Shift 2 was releaed in March while Run was being worked on for the normal November/September release. etc. You get the picture.

Also I've deleted the 4th generation altogether as the first two eras had 6 games per generation and Rivals will be the 5th game in current era (third era). Plus it is not "revolutional" as Underground was to Hot Pursuit 2 to call it a beginning of a new era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.200.195 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Main and secondary games are not necessary as they all released as major titles in the NFS series no matter when the game is released (ex. Nitro was released on the Wii which is one of the major three gaming consoles on the current generation), Electronic Arts have been releasing two titles per year as major games in the franchise to boast sales. The era's is based on who developed which games.

1st era is games are developed by EA Canada and have games that have on-track racing with police pursuits of some sorts.

2nd era is games are developed by EA Black Box and is based on street racing side of the franchise.

3rd era is games developed by different developers lead by EA Black Box.

4th era is games developed by different developers lead by Criterion Games.TheDeviantPro (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

no no, you're wrong. You cant have two major games per year. and the 3rd era and 4th era don't differ too much to have it divided into two eras. Also to consider something amajor game it should be part of the main series and on ALL the major consoles for the year. WII is also in a way the least relevant major system, whereas World was a MMO game, and by definition of a spin-off (look it up), both games are considered as spin-offs. Just as Shift 2 is, especially since it dropped the Need for Speed name altogether. I will edit this to correct you tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectalpinist (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the First Generation was considered to be everything before the switch to Street Racing (NFS - Hot Pursuit 2; saying they're EA Canada's games doesn't hold water since the PlayStation version of Porsche Unleashed was made by Eden Games), the Second is everything until EA switched the development paradigm to two titles in active development simultaneously by separate studios (Underground - ProStreet), the Third all of the games from then until EA gave the franchise to Criterion to work on exclusively (Underground to The Run; Shift had begun active development before Underground's release) and the Fourth everything after that (Most Wanted - Future).

This used to be much clearer back when there were release years next to each entry. Jdenm8 (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Motor City Online
Don't you think it should be moved to "Spin-offs"? I mean, it's not officially a part of NFS franchise. --Nicknine (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)