Talk:Full Throttle (1995 video game)

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

Untitled[edit]

Maybe add that the death of Roy Conrad (voice of ben) was a factor in abandoning the Full Throttle sequel.

obsession with characters sex[edit]

The article had an strange obsession with characters sex, saying "male" or "female" before every character name listed, so I cleaned it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.167.86.138 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

The quotes that used to be in the article have been moved into Wikiquotes where they can be added to or edited. -- Quoth 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Full Throttle Cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Full Throttle Cover.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 Wikipedia: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 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell on Wheels[edit]

I think that since the canceled sequel is also covered by this article, further references to it are perfectly fine. :) --Koveras ☭ 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel information[edit]

Former LucasArts employee Biller Tiller recently did an interview revealing more information regarding both cancelled sequels.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quoth (talk • contribs)

Thank you. :) --Koveras ☭ 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasutra tidbits that might be useful[edit]

[2][3] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered in Infobox[edit]

Taken up by IllaZilla (talk · contribs): According to them, information about Full Throttle Remastered does not belong into the infobox, so here is a put-up for discussion. I disagree, since cotent of official remasters is included in most to all cases on Wikipedia, might even be a guideline if found. Lordtobi (✉) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, it is not useful to put the release details for every later port or re-release of a game, only the original release. I don't do much work on video game articles, so I don't know if this is standard practice, but I know it is standard practice in articles about albums, films, etc. The related WikiProjects decided years ago that adding every release date, publisher, etc. for every time an album was re-released or a movie re-run in theaters wasn't pertinent; what was pertinent in providing the basic details was the original release information. These days, nearly every video game is eventually ported to other platforms, re-released through downloadable/streaming services, etc. I can play Full Throttle on my phone, for pete's sake, but that's not pertinent to describing the games's basic information. Also "TBA" or "TBD" is not the kind of language that's appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you don't know the date it will be released, don't try to put one. A placeholder like "TBA" is not needed and looks unprofessional/unreliable. When more information about the remastered version is available, such as a release date, box art, and what changes have been made to it, it would probably be worth adding a second infobox to the "Remastered version" section, which is where those release details should go. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be regarding "every later port or re-release" that would only be a matter of two lines, while only those that are official or significant (like digital releases, retail releases, re-releases under a different publisher) are added. In this case, however, it is a remaster, an official one, and different versions (such as remasters, editions) always get pointed out in the infobox. To that, you removed the "simply titled x" bit from the body, though I put it there to point out that it does not have an extravagant name like "Full Throttle: Newly Remastered Edition", but still that it does have a name and does not just adopt "Full Throttle" as-is. Lordtobi (✉) 16:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the release details of the remastered version should be in the article, I just don't think they should be in the main infobox in the same spot as those about the original version of the game. It leads to clutter and confusion. If the remaster is indeed a different version of the game (I don't know if it will be as substantially altered as the "special editions" of the first two Monkey Island games, but certainly there will be changes made), then its release details should go in a separate spot from the release details of the original. I'm sure once the remaster is released there will be a lot more to say about it, such as what was changed, critical opinions, etc. At that point it would probably be good for the Remaster section to have its own infobox will all of the release details for that version. As to the title, there is no need to point out that it doesn't have an extravagant name, it would only be worth point out if it did. In all likelihood the "remastered" bit will not constitute a new title, but will simply be small text beneath the original title, more a label than a part of the title itself. But I digress...we won't know until cover art and/or the game itself is released, so it's not worth mentioning a title change or lack thereof until better information is available. I will also point out that posting your opinion on the talk page does not entitle you to revert the article to your preferred version. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remasters most certainly come with updated compatability, graphics, et cetera, but they are substantially the same game, just another version (as depicted above). And as this presits, the remaster's details are to be added to the infobox. Another good example of this is Hatoful Boyfriend, which received a complete remake in 2014, originally being released in 2011, which was in HD and "good" English. But because it was the same game after all, it remains in the infobox, in that case also with some credits added to it. The game's sequel, which did not contain enough to fill a whole article, is just a subsection but received its of infobox due to being another game, although it uses about 90% of the assets from the first game, has the same developer, same publisher, same engine, et cetera, et cetera. Summing up, Remasters, Special Editions and such do not receive their own infoboxes, while addons or "totally different" versions, do, if they are significant enought. "Totally different" version you ask? Take for example Final Fantasy VII Remake; yes, it is a remake, but look closely: It is full-3D (the original Final Fantasy VII was isometric), has more open worlds, extremely different settings and is a complete redo of the original, the only thing that is the same is the developer and the core story, although highly altered already. This is why it received its own infobox, and in this case due to popularity, its own article. Comming to your remakr about BRD, I did not "revert to my preferred version", what I did was reverting to the version before the start of this discussion, as my two edits were originally a part of aliging it with other Double Fine remasters. Lordtobi (✉) 18:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree, please give arguments not already disproven above. Lordtobi (✉) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of your view of which arguments have been disproven, I think you need to respect the views of other editors. If most editors who have expressed a view disagree with you, then you should not keep reverting them. It would be helpful if you could say whether you edited the article as IP 88.77.124.164 - is that your IP? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it worth belaboring the argument, as Lordtobi appears intractable, but I do feel the need to mention that You cannot "disprove" an opinion or, indeed, an argument. You can rebut, you can refute, etc., but you cannot "disprove" someone in a matter that is entirely a difference of opinion, nor is that what consensus-building is about. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: You can't really tell that telling IllaZilla that what was done is common practice is "my own opinion", since it is (with examples given). He already stated that he is not often editing video game articles, and regarding your recent contributions, you don't either. While I don't want to sound rude, I'd rather like to have people with more experience in video game articles, such as Dissident93 (talk · contribs) or Czar (talk · contribs), to consider this. The fact that you simply reverted my revert is just fueling an edit war, especially without consensus as it was clearly visible that this had gone to the talk page. Lordtobi (✉) 09:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't often edit video game articles, but this isn't my first time doing so, and I have 9+ years of Wikipedia experience including a great deal of work on album and film articles, which are of a very similar nature. I'm not a member of the Video Games WikiProject, though, and I've never read discussions that have taken place within that project or regarding the VG infobox, so I don't know the prevailing consensus regarding what details do or don't belong there or what led to those decisions. If you want to point me to some discussions or instructions of that nature that would demonstrate that including all release details of later editions and re-releases is standard practice, I'll gladly read and consider them.
I do think that if you compare the VG infobox to those used for albums or films, you'll find that the latter two generally only include details about the original release and not later editions or re-releases, which in my opinion keeps them more succinct and the details more pertinent. Return of the Jedi is one example off the top of my head: It doesn't list the release date of the 1997 special edition in its infobox, even though that was a theatrical re-release and included a number of changes and additions to the film. The Dark Side of the Moon is an example from the world of albums: It's been reissued, remixed, remastered, and re-released a number of times in different formats and editions and through different record labels, yet only the original release details are in the infobox, the rest are described in the article body but not included in the infobox (excepting the 30th anniversary cover art, for which the infobox has a special parameter). Perhaps that is why looking at a video game article like Super Mario Bros. and seeing some 16 different platforms and 30+ release dates spanning some 3 decades all listed in the infobox appears to me to be cluttered and confusing. Cramming in all details for every release subsequent to the original, especially with video games as they are regularly ported and re-released for new platforms, seems, to me, to run counter to the purpose of an infobox.
I think these comparisons are worth considering, though I don't expect to change any minds on the subject. It's been my experience that few aspects of articles attract as many heated opinions as infoboxes. Rewrite an article top-to-bottom, as I've more or less done here, and barely a peep is heard, but change anything in an infobox and ire is quickly raised. Infoboxes are not sacrosanct; in a complete and well-written article it is essentially superfluous. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of comparision, you are absolutely right. Now look at Hatoful Boyfriend and compare. Deemed to be a "good article", it is definetly notable in comparison. On the Super Mario Bros. article, for cleanup due to very recent guideline changes, the Virtual Console releases would have to be excluded because of them merely being emulations, rather than ports (therefore Virtual Console), but for anything else visible in the infobox, standard practice is generally applied. It does not, however, make sense to compare a video game to, say, a studio album, as they are totally different entities and the guidelines are handeled by another group of people. Also saying here that this not "just any re-release", rather a newly put up version of the still-same game. If you would really take in every different release (non-English regional releases are already cut by consensus), Lego Racers would have to have the 2001 Dice Multi Media release, the 2003 ValuSoft release and the 2007 1+2 Bundled release noted down in the infobox, but it doesn't. It is at the point to differentiate the comparison to one level, why you seemingly haven't found. This is why I would to go with third-party opinions from more experienced video game article editors, such as those stated above. Lordtobi (✉) 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IllaZilla, Lordtobi is right in that current practice is to add almost all non-emulated platform release dates to the infobox (see {{Infobox video game}} documentation for specifics). However, I happen to 100% agree with you that it makes little sense—that the infobox shouldn't include more than the original release—but, alas, I am in the minority on that: WT:VG#Release_date_proposal. czar 13:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, I think you both have some valid points. The main purpose of an infobox, as I understand it, is to provide a quick overview of commonly sought information, avoiding the need for readers to scan through the main body of text. With that in mind, I think including information we don't know in an infobox, such as dates which are TBA, doesn't much align with that purpose and is only marginally useful (unless not knowing a certain fact is itself notable, such as not knowing the perpetrator of a murder); otherwise one could just as well list any of the things we don't yet know about a topic: "Budget: unknown; Composer: unknown", etc. Which I think most would agree would be unhelpful clutter, slowing down the reader in an area intended for quick parsing. I think it more to our purpose as a repository of knowledge to wait for a concrete, citable release date before including one anywhere in the article — not to be forgetting that anything appearing in the infobox should already be included and cited somewhere in the article body.
    Regarding the inclusion of multiple dates for games released on multiple platforms: this is standard procedure for video game articles, because while it may be more common now, with the advent of digital distribution, historically the possibility of playing a game has largely been dependent on the platforms it's been released on — platforms individually a lot less ubiquitous than televisions, DVD players, or CD players (to compare with films and albums). On top of that, many ports to other platforms can have significant differences depending on their graphical or audio capabilities — different music, different visuals, more or less content, sometimes a completely different style of game. Different enough to warrant their own sections (see Loom, Daikatana), but not yet so different or notable to warrant their own articles or even infoboxes. Regarding the clutter aspect of multiple release dates: this is something we have a guideline for, as you're correct in thinking they can easily clutter the infobox. The infobox documentation recommends the use of collapsible lists if there are many release dates.
    I also think that spelling out the remaster's title in the article lead is superfluous, as the only addition is the label. Simply mentioning that it is a remaster should be enough detail for the lead. — Quoth (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that TBA dates aren't that usefull to express that something is unknown, however, it might be a good point that it should be included to avoid confusion with people thinking that the remaster also came out in 1995, as there is only one release date. As for the "Full Throttle Remastered" title in the lead, I may stay neutral here since it is also stated in the body. Lordtobi (✉) 14:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all. Whatever else may or may not end up in the infobox, I remain strongly opposed to including "TBA", "TBD", or any variation thereof. Use of such phrasings as placeholders gives articles an amateurish appearance. If no date is known, none should be listed. In this case simply saying "2016" would suffice, as that much has been announced; an exact date can be added once one is confirmed. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me, the "TBA" shall be the descision of the remaining parties. Lordtobi (✉) 17:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception stuff[edit]

I see that this article is getting close to GA status, barring the thin Reception section. So here's a PC Magazine review for Full Throttle. The Computer Gaming World review can be found here, and the PC Gamer US review is here. I think I have Electronic Gaming Monthly and Next Generation reviews in my magazine collection, which I'd be more than happy to scan. Looks like the NextGen review is already in the article body, but the score seems to be missing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I was going to ask if someone had some of these old reviews! --Teancum (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect. I'll scan the reviews from my magazines tomorrow—please ping me if I forget, as I've got a lot on my plate and a habit of forgetting tasks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dug through my magazines, and it looks like EGM didn't review it, even though MobyGames claims they did. Oh well. Still, here's the Next Generation review for the Macintosh version: Next Generation #12, December 1995, page 195. I also dug up MacWorld's review here (for reference, MacWorld rated on a 5 star scale, so this is a 4/5 score). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added as much as I felt I could from the magazine reviews. Thanks so much for posting it. It's still tough to flesh out that section, but I think it's a vast improvement. --Teancum (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CGW feature on Hell on Wheels: [4]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Mac release date[edit]

I doubt the Mac version was released at the same time as the DOS version since the reviews are from 96. Inside Mac Games September 1995 issue supposedly contains "Sneak Peek" of Full Throttle (and maybe the release date) but I can't figure out how to read old Mac CDs in Windows 10. Mika1h (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_Throttle_(1995_video_game)&oldid=1207325950"