Talk:Starsiege: Tribes

PROPOSAL FOR ARTICLE RESTORATION & TALK PAGE ARCHIVAL

I propose this article be restored to the point before Eik Corell's cull/edit, so that we can look anew at the issues the article had and then fix them. I also propose this Talk page be archived so that we can begin with a fresh Talk page so that we can discuss section changes and improvement point by point in collaboration with all interested parties. GordonTG (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Before anymore drama gets piled onto this, what exactly do you feel should be changed/removed, Eik? I do agree that it is/was far from perfect, such as the ELF gun not even getting explained and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanVolm (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can go over the reasons behind specific changes/removals from [1]. Sorry for the length, but it might help interested contributors to source what they want to see in the article. Below, in italics, I refer to WP:V, WP:OR, WP:VG/GL, WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NPOV.

• Lead section
  • Removed: Claim of being one of the only games of its kind (uncited, unspecific.)
  • Moved: Information on maps moved to gameplay section.
  • Removed: "relatively huge", "fast-paced feel" (original research)
• New section, History, contains material merged from lead and "Sequel" section.
• Gameplay
  • Added: Brief plot synopsis, per video game article guidelines.
  • Removed: Discussion of mods, per WP:V. If sourced correctly, we can have a section on mods, but this should not be mixed up with the gameplay section. However, mods rarely receive coverage from published sources. Some are listed at ModDB but have not received editorial coverage.
• Sections on Packs, Vehicles, Base equipment, Generators, Turrets, Stations, Sensors - subsumed into the gameplay section. Some material left removed (that Packs are "A very important aspect"), others I managed to find citations for (that heavy mortars are good against base defenses, for example) These numerous sub-sections were also veering into gamecruft territory.
• Removed: Jetpack section. The Comparison to other FPSs and its tactical usage in the game is original research. The statement that begins "The incorporation of this third dimension..." uses both weasel words and is not in a neutral tone. Opinion on gameplay elements should be gathered from professional critiques.
• Removed: Skiing section. In addition to being unverified, also contains original research (comparison to Bunny Hopping, presence in other games, etc.) and weasel words ("angering to new players and to purists...")
• Edited: Other features. Disregarding the poorly toned lead sentence, information on the PDA was moved to the Gameplay section.
• Removed: HUDs/Scripts. That the game is scriptable might be mentioned, but is otherwise trivial. Unverified
• Added: Reception section - I added an overview of the GameSpot review. This is an important section, as this third-party coverage is what's used to discuss parts of the game that a lot of contributors are trying to get in through original research.
• Removed: Community support section- Again, trivial, unless one can show how a game's community is important, through the use of reliable third-party sources. Original research.
• Removed: Competition section (uncited, probably original research, excessive technical detail.)
• Moved: Game Types section - merged to Gameplay section.
• Removed: AI / Offline Gameplay, original research. The gamespot review did mention the training missions. This is now cited in the Reception section. If there's no discussion of Spoonbot in reliable publications, we don't mention it either.
• Removed: Mods and RPG sections. I know there are contributors who what to see a mods section, but our coverage should reflect that given by reliable publications. As far as I can tell, there's no coverage of mods at either ModDB or in any of the reviews I've looked through. Therefore, removed as original research.
• Removed: Game Firsts. Most seriously, this is not in a neutral tone, but also appears to be original research.
• Removed: Piracy section. Piracy effects all games, so the discussion here is trivial as well as apparent original research.
• Edited: Sequels and Re-release sections. Sales figures and development decisions are unverified. Unofficial patches are probably unverifiable through third-party sources. Remaining information merged to History section.
• Removed: Shazbot and Alvy Elna sections. Original research.
• Edited: External links. WP:VG/EL suggests that fan sites are inappropriate but open to concensus. If the Tribal Wiki is stable then perhaps this could be linked to.

I appreciated Gordon's comments about community concensus about content. This can be opened out to the videogames wikiproject if need be. There is always leeway in the guidelines (WP:VG/GL in this case), but there are also many violations of core wikipedia policies. Material is being challenged and the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

I also support the archiving of the talkpage above this section - none of it was particularly constructive. Marasmusine (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, archiving would probably be a good idea. Won't take long before it looks like this again, though. Eik Corell (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The "skiing" and "jetpack" sections need to remain in some form if possible, if sections aren't possible then they certainly deserve subsections under gameplay. The jetpack is something which defines the game from all others, and skiing is probably even more important to Tribes than bunny hopping is to Quake. I'm guessing that the only problem is backing up this information with a decent source, as the game is over 10 years old - finding reliable sources which verify this might be tricky. However I'm sure most players would agree that these features of the game are more important than most of the current gameplay content. Sudo make me a sandwich (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found a usable source at [2]. It mentions both the importance of jetpacks and the concept behind skiing, and Future Publishing is a reliable source. Whilst we need to avoid writing anything resembling a strategy guide or hints & tips section, I think I can use this to enhance the gameplay section. I will consider subsections. I might not have time to do this today but will certainly dig into it tomorrow, when I can investigate other reviews as well.

In the meantime, I know a Mods section is something that the Tribes community wants to see. Whilst ModDB was a dead end, perhaps you guys could track down any PC magazines these mods might have been mentioned in. Marasmusine (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the original Talk page. I'll be looking for reliable links to cite supporting content removed as original research. I have to say that a quick google search will find plenty of references to "Alvy Elna". Sourcing links and reviews for Mods on the otherhand is a tricky one, the game itself is old and the interweb is notorious for losing content as pages get deleted or domains expire.

A few reliable sources exist for Tribes in general and I will add more as and when I find them

• http://www.archive.org is perfect for retrieving 'dead' websites (I'll be using this one to source info if I can remember the names of sites we lost).
• http://www.planettribes.com is part of the IGN entertainment network and can be considered a reliable information source.
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22starsiege+tribes%22+review&meta= will provide a plethora of reviews from which you should be able to pick and choose quotes about the more innovative aspects of the game.

I'll be keeping my eye out for citations in support of the Mod section. Whilst I can say Mods were instrumental in the popularity and longevity of the game, I need to find details to support this. I'd also like to see the most popular Mods covered in basic detail, a small overview and description of how they diverge from Tribes Base. In particular I'm looking for historical references to server stats to extract info on Mod popularity as well as where Tribes placed compared to other online FPS games of the time. GordonTG (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the reception section, I've found one more review if needed(IGN)

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanVolm (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have hit the jackpot on Mods a massive 139! Mod list is here http://theexiled.pwnageservers.com/mods_database.php containing some useful links to the official mod sites. As you can see from the list the Renegades Mod, Ultra Renegades, Ultra Renegades VX, Shifter, Annihilation and the Paintball Mod were all popular and updated. I'm still looking for some sort of reference to Mod popularity. Finding this list is a reasonable start as is the most extensive I have found so far. GordonTG (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) PS Evan remember to sign your posts by using 4 ~ symbols ;)

While searching Mod popularity I dug up this record of server stats from Gamespy [4] showing Starsiege: Tribes as the 3rd most played online FPS game in december 1998, by april 1999 [5] it was a 2nd by june 2000 [6] Tribes maintained it's posistion as 2nd but by july 2001 it had slipped to 5th behind it's sequel Tribes 2 [7]. I hope this goes some way to explaining the importance of Tribes as an online game for people who are less familiar with it. An on online game that for a sustained period was played by more people that than any of it's contemporaries excluding Half Life. GordonTG (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)