Talk:Nexuiz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion[edit]

While this page has been voted for deletion in the past, it was because of lack of content. That situation has been changed so there is no need for another deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermeulen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 November 2004

Source[edit]

Now look, i'm not sure that the game is open source because there's no source code download on the site, but many other open source projects don't have there source code on their sites, and of course there is lots of evidence to support my claim. (for example, one of the download links lead to sourceforge.net and nearly all games based on open source technology are open source themselves.

It is open source! --Member 8 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

The game uses the darkplaces engine. Source included in the default download. The gamefiles on the other side ARE already compiled when you download them the normal way. If you alsowant their source (maps, ai and stuff) you need to get them form the SVN reposity. Shouldn't be to hard.--82.93.3.165 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source is included in the normal game download so there's no need for a seperate source download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikmerten (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 July 2005
yay open source... heh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.91.240 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 November 2006

PC Gamer article[edit]

I removed the link to the article scan as it is a copyright violation. You can cite the magazine article in order to add or support info in the article.--Drat (Talk) 09:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured in Maximum PC[edit]

As for the notability requirement, Nexuiz was also featured on the cover of the Maximum PC disk http://alientrap.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14657&sid=9a277d77a8e10b15da741b50f89dd6a2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.133.6 (talk • contribs).

That's trivial.--Drat (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple's Downloads staff & users like it[edit]

A few days ago it was rated # 13 on Apple's Mac OS X downloads page -- Staff picks tab. Now it's out of there, but it's # 12 on the top 20 (first visible tab).

Right now it's also the featured application on the action/adventure page.

Does that count towards notability? I'd say so, but should it actually go into the article? --Xlotlu 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things like that cannot be proven without third party notice (because they change). Even then, fleeting positions in top X lists isn't all that notable.--Drat (Talk) 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the article.[edit]

This article is like an advertisement. It definitely doesn't need a features or screenshots section.--Granpire Viking Man 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

features? ... maybe but there are too many screenshots Cyger (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who doesn't like to look at pictures of a game before they play it??? Zninja (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zninja, I really appreciate the images you contributed to the article, but i'm not certain whether the water mark that can be seen in one of the corners of the pictures is really that great. Perhaps you could cut that out? 212.181.137.139 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Granpire Viking Man; the Features and Screenshots sections should be removed, and additionally the Press Coverage section, to make this article less of an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.166.247 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GPL[edit]

game is totally GPL; source code GPL, media GPLCyger (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage/sources[edit]

I don't have enough interest to edit this article, but this might help notability.

... huh. Guess that's it as far as reliable sources go. Good luck to whoever updates the article. --Teancum (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appears to be transcripted here, so will check through it at some point. Marasmusine (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rights bought by IllFonic[edit]

The main domain page has changed today, Nexuiz is being ported to the PS3.

Info:

81.247.72.59 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to edit the article yet since I don't know exactly what the situation is, but it should be noted that "Classic Nexuiz" is NOT actually available from the main website at this time. There is a download link that says "FULL zip from Sourceforge.net," but it points back to the main page at nexuiz.com. However, the download is, in fact, still available at SF ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/nexuiz/ ). Just wanted to throw that out there.
-- Rschauer (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPL Nexuiz / Proprietary Nexuiz confusion[edit]

The introductive paragraph to this article is really confusing. It introduces proprietary Nexuiz as the current version and GPL Nexuiz as a thing of the past, yet most of the article is about the latter.

Besides, the two projects only share a name; they do not have much more in common. Would this warrant a split of the article? 109.128.22.191 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a lot of out-of-date and confusing content. For instance, the article still references Nexuiz as being free, though the most recent version is not. However, I don't think this warrants splitting into two pages. There's already an article on Xonotic, the open-source fork of Nexuiz, but as far as I can tell, Nexuiz Classic (as it's called here) is no longer in development, so any information about it should probably be contained in this article, maybe even in its own section. All new development is by IllFonic, so I think the article should reflect that as the current state of Nexuiz, with a section on its history clarifying that the project moved from open source and free to (I'm assuming) closed source and commercial.
I'm open to opposing opinions, of course, especially if there's a precedent. Obviously, notable forks can be spun off into a new page, but I'm not sure about what the best thing to do in the case of a project shifting developers and philosophy while keeping the same name. --clpo13(talk) 01:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Looks like there already is another article. In that case, it would probably work best to go the other way around from what I proposed: focus this article on the original Nexuiz and make mention of the change in developers and license in a dedicated section of the article. --clpo13(talk) 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nexuiz&oldid=1203506125"