Talk:Elite (video game)/Archive 1

Live actor clips

I almost feel that the live actor movie clips (for station commanders and other message screens) that where used in First Encounters deserve mention too. Though only because they where most likely the worst ever acting performance ever seen in a computer game (wich says a lot).

I seem uneable to formulate a neutral way to describe the lack of any kind of quality in those clips tough, so I won't edit the article myself.

--213.225.64.72 07:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Space Dredgers and Generation Ships

What was the story with these? I wasted a ridiculous amount of time searching for these things. Bastie 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

These are verified not to exist, by fans who have gone through the code with a fine-tooth comb, by engineers who have reverse-engineered the source code, and by the developers of the original versions (most notably Birch and Gringras for the Archimedes version, who once stated so in an interview). Filecore 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences and References

The phrases "Harmless" and "Mostly Harmless" from Douglas Adams' Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

The Monty Python-esque planetary database which used a phrase generator to provide descriptions such as "The planet Leesti is reasonably fabled for Zero-G cricket and Leestian evil juice."

Appearance of Star-Trek Tribbles, introduced in the Commodore 64 conversion.

I got suckered into buying *One* tribble... Pitty i couldn't sell the thousands i ended up with...Fosnez 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: these are 'Trimbles', not 'Tribbles' (or else you have copyright violations against Paramount). But I thought I'd post here instead of editing the commnet so people notice; after all, it's quite a common mistake.

actually, just to be pedantic, they're Trumbles :) Xmoogle 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true. They are Trumbles ;) MURGH ^disc. 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Trumble" was a tribute to Douglas Trumble, FX guy on 2001:A Space Odyssey. (26 Jun 2007 Bell}

The name was actually Douglas Trumbull. It needs WP:RS to go in. Murgh^disc. 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There should also be reference to X, X2 and X3 for the PC in there, do you think ? Considering the X series is so similar ?

Trade Wars vs Elite

I would like to see some research into the relationship between Elite, which was released in 1984, and Trade Wars (tradewars), which was also released in 1984. From my discussions with the original author of Trade Wars, its primary influences were Star Trader, which first appeared as a BASIC game in 1974, as well as Hunt the Wumpus (1972) and the boardgame Risk. Trade Wars is quite different from Elite, since it was developed as a BBS door and was a competative multiplayer game. But I believe the statement that Elite is the original space trader overlooks Star Trader and the Trade Wars series of games. Elite is clearly the first graphical space trader/simulation game, but the space trader genre needn't necessarily be graphical. Both Star Trader and Trade Wars were text-based.

I'm convinced that Trade Wars and Elite were developed independently, especially given the very different platforms. I also believe that neither should claim the title of "first space trader". That destinction belongs to Star Trader, unless this can be proven wrong.

Also, in regard to the X series, I was approached by X author Bernd Lehan of Egosoft back in 1999, and he told me that X was at least partially inspired by Trade Wars, which he had enjoyed years before. Clearly Elite was another influence.

Since I'm biased (I'm the current owner of Trade Wars and continue to support the classic game), I'll leave it to others to sort out the relationship (if any) between these two games. The history of Trade Wars development can be found at http://www.eisonline.com/twhistory . If anyone wishes to contact me, my email is jpritch at eisonline.com

The name of the aliens, the Thargoids, was taken from the kenny everett show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.70.155 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Free Trader - Avalon Hill Microcomputer game 1983  :] I used to play it on my Atari 800 8-bit... home of Star Raiders 1979. I forgot my logon credentails and I at work so I will sign the best I can. -Avalon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.201 (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Expand Mission section (or create subarticles for them)

First, what the goal actually is; and then navigation info on how to achieve them. Jon 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All the info you need is on the AFE FAQ or on the EliteWiki pages; for example, the EliteWiki ArcElite page is completed. Filecore 09:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Atari ST version

My memory is a bit hazy, but i'm sure an Atari ST version of Elite did appear, although it's not currently listed on this page, it had improved 'Solid' graphics, but was basically the same as the BBC version. Anyone remember it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bornagainst (talk • contribs) .

I believe I remember it, being both a BBC Micro and an ST owner, and an avid Elite fan. Unfortunately memory is tricky thing. I think I remember seeing the first Apollo moon launch (man, I'm old) but I can't now be sure if that's a real memory. We'd need to dig up a reliable source for the ST version before adding it to the article. If I find anything I'll let you know... Gwernol 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is mentioned in the article, and quite easy to find using Google, for example this page. Gwernol 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, quick bit of googling shows an Atari ST version from 1988 developed by 'Mr. Micro'? although there's no information regarding any differences, at least my memory isn't failing me quite yet. born against 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, Elite ST (and Amiga) were developed by Rob Nicholson of Mr Micro - if memory serves me correctly the one major difference was a bug in the random number generator which led to the planet descriptions being different to the 8 bit versions. Paulie 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Frontier copy protection system

Is there any reason why the Frontier copy protection system is described as "even more user-unfriendly than the infamous Lenslok device"? According to the Frontier article, the copy protection system was a standard for the time read-the-manual type one. Did it malfunction in some way? 212.54.218.146 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember, it just didn't work worth a damn. I have vague memories that it gave different page numbers to those used in the manual, and didn't explain which words it included in the count (e.g. whether section headings counted or not). I certainly remember it being painful, I think almost everyone got a crack to remove it before long. Mark Grant 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

According to http://amigareviews.classicgaming.gamespy.com/frontier.htm, "The game has a very nasty copy protection system. At certain points you have to enter letters from the manual, but the program does not tell you if you have input the right one. If you get it wrong, you are thrown out of the game later on, which is very annoying if you have just saved your position." It's years since I played Frontier, but that does sound somewhat familiar, and doubly annoying because it was so hard to tell whether you'd found the right letter in any case. Another page said it asked every twenty minutes, which would be very stupid. Mark Grant 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CGA or EGA?

I'm not going to chime in with any opinions on this one for now, but could any of the editors involved in the repeated CGA/EGA changes please point me to the verifiable evidence they are using as the basis for their edits? Cheers --Pak21 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Short of inspecting the code, http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/pc/index.htm should be verifiable enough. :-) I'm reverting back. --Frodet 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But here are some screenshots of CGA *and* VGA versions: http://www.birdsanctuary.co.uk/elite/s.php - anyone care to re-re-re-revert back again? ;) --Gaunt 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I played the game again just now and it does really look like 320×200 at high intensity palette 2 CGA.... I'm confused. :-/ --Frodet 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add more confusion to the fray, I give you the Elite FAQ from Frontier, which states (Q2) that Elite (non-Plus) is CGA and Elite Plus is EGA/VGA. I remember playing Elite in 4-colour mode on my PC, but this was a good few years ago, so... I believe at this point that Bell is probably wrong here, and we should state CGA in the article, but I won't change it unless Frodet is happy with this. Cheers --Pak21 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And just to throw some more oil on the fire, the alt.fan.elite FAQ here: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/bbc/doc/games/EliteFAQ.htm states in section 3.18 that the original PC Elite was CGA only, and section 3.19 importantly also states the use of MCGA mode (256 colours) *as well as* the 16 colour EGA and VGA modes. --Gaunt 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was one of the clever effects of the original BBC code. It changed resolution during the video scan, so the top part of the screen was in a high resolution 2-color mode and the bottom part was in a lower resolution 4-color mode. IIRC the same technique was used on the IBM PV version, so both MCGA and EGA were used simultaneously to build the screen image. A neat little trick. Of course this recollection absolutely needs verification before it could be included in the article. I may be very wrong... Gwernol 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But with the PC versions there was no need to cleverly build up the display with two different modes (only used originally on the Beeb to save on precious RAM yet still have a decent resolution for the main display), so when it's talked about PC Elite running in CGA, EGA, VGA and MCGA modes then it's running in *one* of those modes exclusively and not doing anything fancy to switch between two separate modes. Here's some screenshots of Elite Plus in MCGA mode: http://www.hooplah.com/encounters/elitep.htm --Gaunt 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more to your edit. Hope it's OK. --Frodet 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The BBC mode switch doesn't strictly speaking allow high resolution while saving RAM, since if it had been unavailable the alternative would have been an all-mode-4 display with the same resolution and same RAM usage but only two colours. This was done on the Electron version. However, I believe that another 6845 hack did save RAM: notice (see the screenshot) that the display is only 128px wide in the lo-res scanner and 256px wide in the hi-res front view (as opposed to the expected 160 and 320). It looks as if the row length was shortened from 40 6845 characters to 32 for a 20% RAM saving. This also became a popular technique on the BBC, though it may have been original in 1984. Can anyone confirm? —Blotwell 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The split screen mode hack is quite well known - you'll come across it if you write a Beeb emulator and try to run Elite on it. I've added it to the article with a {{citation needed}} template since I can't find any good references on the web. I'm fairly sure I have an issue of Acorn User at home that mentions it in this context - if I find it I'll put it up. Hairy Dude 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

hi, hope not to break anything here; instructions about adding contributes are not very clear. i've edited the "EGA bit" about graphic resolution. There were two versions of the first original elite: a line-drawn version (very similar to the original 8 bit computer version) and a shaded one (requiring a "powerful machine: at least a 6mhz 286). but both of them were for a CGA machine; here you can have a look at some screens http://www.abandonia.com/games/113/download/Elite.htm

hope it helps, dave/Dave4mame 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NP. Just make sure that you site some sources when editing, especially something controversial.

I was not aware of two PC versions, only the filled vector one. Interesting - can you site sources? The URL you gave did only have the latter version as well. --Frodet 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

you can play the "linedrawn" version by running ELITEL.EXE or by running ELITE.COM and then choosing option 2 via the menu.

OK. I was not aware of that. It's not available on my the version I have (only elite.exe there). --Frodet 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have all three original executables if anyone wants them. I also produced a small DOS tool to disable/enable the copy protection routine as desired. 2fort5r (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cancelled categories

Please see Category:Cancelled computer and video games (BTW how do I link to a category without putting the page in the category). This says it was released in 1984, however the description there says the catgories like this are for games cancelled before release. WikiSlasher 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Elite was released on the BBC in 1984. It was cancelled on other platforms (apparently; I hold no actual knowledge as to this). For linking to a category, use [[:Category:CATEGORYNAME]] (note the prefix colon). Cheers --Pak21 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --WikiSlasher 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit - infobox

Not sure that last edit improved the article. Any thoughts? --Oscarthecat 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking the example Infobox_CVG usage, I've rolled back the edit and invited the contributor of that last edit to discuss here. --Oscarthecat 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no set guideline for arranging platforms within the infobox, but if wrapping becomes an issue than by all means include line breaks. Combination 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To do in order to raise quality

What specifically is on the top of the list in order to improve the assessment of this article? Any thoughts on coordinated strategies? Murgh 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all we should start adding sources. --Frodet 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of planets

The article says there are 256 planets in each galaxy, and the Elite wiki concurs. But the original Elite manual claims there are 2040 planets altogether, which suggests 255 in each of eight galaxies. Which is correct? —Blotwell 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would believe the orignal authors - you reference the Oolite planet list from the EliteWiki, but Oolite is developed seperately and may have been altered from the original Elites. Filecore 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Phone Version

Believe it or not, there appears to have been a mobile phone version of Elite, published in '05 by Elite Systems (weren't they the guys who ruined Ultimate Play The Game's reputation?), called Elite Star Warriors[1]. I suppose it's worthy of a mention. I'm not in the mood to do it myself, so any regular editors want to follow this up... Beeromatic 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There was also a PPC version, but it was some idiot who took Christopher Pinder's reverse-engineered Elite: The New Kind and tried to sell it commercially. There was a legal battle and since then many other versions of Elite also vanished (TNK took a battering and Pinder's other project, Elite: Darkness Falls, was re-released as The Dark Kind, with direct Elite references removed. Shame, as I had contacted Pinder and he had let me write a novella for it :-( Incidentally, since you can get emulators for mobile phones (or just use a Java emulator), you can always play emulated versions of these classics, including Elite! Filecore 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

the link to elite star warriors is broken.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.94.134.81 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction

The third paragraph of the introduction troubles me a bit. While it is very well written, it reeks of WP:OR. Can we substanciate the claims there, or rewrite it to be more WP:NPOV? --Frodet 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolved?

The article says "In 1999/2000, a dispute occurred between Ian Bell and David Braben... The dispute has now ended". Also it says that The New Kind remake by Christian Pinder is available again. I don't think that this dispute has been resolved - the copyright claims were quite complicated according to various usenet posts. http://groups.google.es/group/alt.fan.elite/msg/498ac8b1f145d11b?dmode=source http://groups.google.es/group/alt.fan.elite/msg/2e501fe68da4418e?dmode=source 84.77.13.47 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Beeb disc version missions

I am fairly sure of this but did not want to change the main page as it was a long time ago and this perhaps needs looking at further.

The main article states there were only two missions on this version, yet I am sure there were supposed to be four. I distinctly remember doing the mission for the secret navy ship, I think it was destroying it.

I know I never really tried the missions on the other versions I played, so it would have to be the bbc disc one.

I wasn't sure where to put this question so please do not take offense if I have added it incorrectly.

The BBC disc version definitely only has two missions, and the BBC tape version had none.

Please sign your posts! Riedquat 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed this is correct, there were always only two missions in the BBC Disk version and the tape version had none at all (I know, I had the tape version).

Ollierob (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Conversions and clones

I've added a paragraph to this article containing the specific details of the differences between the tape version and the disk version of BBC Elite. I verified the differences by checking the game manual.

Also, I've clarified that Elite was re-released in 1986 by Superior Software, and it was that release that contained BBC B+/Master and 6502 processor support. I also added that it there was no disk-loading during the game on the B+/Master release.

The section is a little large now, so not sure if we want to split away the specific BBC releases of Elite, versus ports to other platforms.

Ollierob (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess it was reversed as not being needed information so nvm. I thought being an encyclopedia meant that the information would be useful. Ollierob (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people who play it say that Pardus (www.pardus.at) say that it is a spiritual successor of Elite. Could someone mention this? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.154.52 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound notable or reliable enough to include in the article. After all, many games are "spiritual successors" (of one form or another) to Elite, since Elite was the first game of a brand new genre. Xihr (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1337

some mention should be made that this game is the source of the whole elite/leet/1337 thing in hacker culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite? Alastairward (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Come now, he's not going to be able to cite something that's untrue. It's more likely that the existence of "elite" status on BBSs influenced the game, rather than the other way around.--Rfsmit (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ELITE screenshot MSX flying.png

Image:ELITE screenshot MSX flying.png 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elite-Apple2.gif

Image:Elite-Apple2.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elite Plus.jpg

Image:Elite Plus.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Panned

'FOFT was widely panned by reviewers' - does not appear to be true - some extremely high scores there.Flumpaphone (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of clone discussion

I am the current maintainer of Oolite. Discussion of Oolite and other clones was recently removed with reference to WP:GAMECRUFT point 8, which reads:

Homebrew clones and remakes: These are generally included for self-promotion and may infringe on copyrighted works.

Based on: Based on: Wikipedia is not a soapbox

It is my contention that this action, and this guideline, are in error.

• The “may infringe on copyrighted works” bit is in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED as clarified by WP:Content disclaimer. An editor’s notion that the content discussed is potentially illegal in some unspecified jurisdiction is clearly irrelevant. You’ll note that WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, while WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline which, moreover, goes out of its way to point out that it is flexible.
• The notability of a mention of Oolite and a link to its WP page is rougly in proportion to its notability in itself. If you really think Oolite is non-notable self-promotion, feel free to AfD it.
• The inclusion of the Oolite (computer game) article clearly does not fall under WP:SOAP point 4 (self-promotion), as it was not created by or substantially written by anyone involved in the project. The original author (User:Aegidian), another contributer (User:Ali0th) and I have made minor changes of purely factual nature, such as updating existing web site links and correcting incorrect license information. As far as I’m aware, the link from this article to the Oolite one was not added by any of us either, and as such is not self-promotion.
• Oolite is a well-established and quite widely distributed game, with significant coverage in gaming magazines and web sites.

Just as I don’t edit the Oolite article beyond minor factual changes, I do not intend to edit this one for obvious WP:NPOV reasons. As project maintainer, I don’t actually care much about the issue. As a wikipedian, however, it strikes me as the sort of opinionated nuisance editing that makes Wikipedia ever so slightly less pleasant each time you come across it. As for gamecruft, there are vastly more polluted articles in much greater need of attention. -Ahruman (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to contest the guidelines in the video game project, which were added by consensus, I'd suggest taking that up at the project talk page. This is not the place to discuss guideline content, just content directly related to this article. Likewise, you're assertion is incorrect. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a policy, and trumps WP:NOTCENSORED.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Copyrights pertains to the copyright in materials posted to Wikipedia, not copyright in materials contained in subjects described on Wikipedia. For instance, posting unauthorised fan fiction on Wikipedia would be a copyright violation relevant to WP:Copyrights, but discussing its existence is just as clearly not.

Additionally, no particular copyright infringement has been identified in this case, there is merely a guideline claiming that a wide variety of works may be infringing.-Ahruman (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And I would disagree, because if the existence of the game itself infringes on copyrighted material (i.e. the game), its discussion falls under that clearly. If it can be established the game itself exists with the blessing of the original IP owner, I could somewhat agree. Regardless, there's the issue of WP:Soapbox with homebrew games, and the issue of whether there's any sort of real WP:Notability regarding its inclusion in an article on Elite. It would need to be established that some sort of notability in relation to it and Elite exists. Something done "in the spirit of" simply does not qualify it, anyone can homebrew a game in the "spirit" of something, there's a million and one flash clones out there in the "spirit" of other games. It would need to demonstrate that the game itself is noted for being in the spirit of Elite. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

David Braben, the primary active licence holder for Elite, has always been farly tolerant of clones of Elite as long as they do not seek to make any money from the franchise. Thus as long as the software is distributed free then Mr. Braben has permitted these homage works. The often-quoted issue related to Elite TNK is that someone distributed a hand-held version of it as payware. Mr. Braben did not close TNK down because it was a clone of Elite. He closed it down because the code base was being sold on the open market.

Oolite is not a direct clone of Elite - it does not share the same code base, for example. Giles wrote the game from the ground up to work on higher-level computers and to permit the innovations he wanted to add to the game. Oolite's existence and development have been covered in many mainstream magazines and websites and the existence of Oolite MUST have come to Mr. Braben's attention by this point. A cursory entry of "elite clones" in Google brings up Oolite on page 1, so I'm sure the Frontier Development Legal Team could find it easily enough if they wanted to shut it down?

Surely, then, the IP issue is negated unless a clear complaint is made? This would appear to be backed up by Marty's statement that "Likewise, you're assertion is incorrect. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a policy, and trumps WP:NOTCENSORED" - if this is the case then surely the section in question should be reinstated? I feel it worthy to note that the entry for the Asteroids video game has a "Clones and bootlegs" section whilst Pac-man goes one further, having a complete page devoted to clones. The game Total Annihilation has been completely re-engineered by a team of developers to create Spring, which has its own WP article. Note also that Oolite and Spring are both protected under the GNU GPL which prohibits the distribution of the game in any way other than free open source, which is enough to prohibit breaches of IP. Every IP infringement I am aware of has involved making money from an IP. In fact, most IPs specifically state that making money from the IP is prohibited but do not mention the free distribution of something based on that IP as being an infringement - this statement is based on experience with Games Workshop, who have an extensive IP policy. As long as the IP is being treated with respect then normally a company or individual will have no issue.

It is a fact of life that clones of a game (or even remakes) will happen - the gaming market is aware of this and tolerates it as long as the IP is not being abused (i.e. money being made from it or generating negative publicity) as it promotes thier IP and widens the target audience. - Selezen (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The WP:COPY issue is a total red herring - it prohibits us from linking to copyright violations, not talking about things that may or may not be in breach of IP. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Those articles have a clear guideline for their clone listing - i.e. the clones and bootlegs are not modern homebrews, and are notable in their own right for being a clone or bootleg at the time of the game, same for the ones under pac-man. I.E. under the consensus of the video games project members, its been demonstrated they have a defined historical value as a clone, hence the creation of the standard clones section to discuss these in these game articles (which are generally in older IP games). In the same token, modern homebrew clones are clearly not listed in the articles you mention (Asteroids, Pac-Man) because of those reasons mentioned previously. Likewise, that is a completely incorrect view on the exercise of game IP. Coming from someone who works in the industry, stealing and reusing IP is stealing, regardless if its being given for free or not. Game companies are notorious for cracking down on use of the their IP in any fashion. Even free games, which are seen as even more dangerous to an IP then someone selling a game for money, because they erode the claim of the IP by moving it towards the public domain. If Oolite survives the AFD, I can concede to reinstating it, but not the other clones. Content like that in articles is also subject to notability in relation to the article itself, not simply because of the fact a clone exists. Notability also has established guidelines that have to be satisfied, and the fact that its "popular in the Linux community" is not a verifiable reason. So if the current AFD, which is filed on the grounds of notability, is decided as keep then I'll put the Oolite part back in. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Acorn Electron Elite.png, found on Elite (video game), has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Elite The Dark Wheel Novella.jpg

The image File:Elite The Dark Wheel Novella.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Trevj (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mode 7

The Electron version used clever programming to replicate graphics mode 7, which is unavailable on the Electron

er, mode 7 on the Model B was videotex. Elite in videotex might have been fun but wouldn't really have flown. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The mode 7 statement is plain wrong. The Electron version ran completely in mode 4, while the BBC version ran a 'split screen' display with mode 4 in the upper part, and mode 5 in the lower part. If anything, it was the BBC version that pulled the clever tricks. This paragraph contained several other inaccuracies. I've taken the liberty of correcting them. Captain Sumo (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Modem elite

I vaguely remember a shareware game which allowed two players connected via modems to fight each other in Cobra spaceships. Anyone know what this was called? I assume it was totally unofficial and not approved by Bell/Braben? 2fort5r (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was LineWars. 2fort5r (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was Linewars released in 1990. A sequel, LineWars II, has an article on WP. 2fort5r (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

Am I the only one who thinks the image used as screenshot for the IBM PC Compatible version is a bit out of place? Even possibly misleading. It shows the loading splash-screen while all the other versions show gameplay screenshots. If anyone has a PC version gameplay screenshot I'd advocate changing the image unless anyone has a good rationale for keeping the current one? Splateagle (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I've replaced it with a spanky in-game shot instead. a_man_alone (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work - that definitely looks better. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a big improvement. Splateagle (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem though, is that there's a limit to the ammount of non-free images that can be used in an article. Hence screenshot galleries are generally not allowed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Screenshot_galleries.3F for more info. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The linked guidelines do not prohibit galleries, they recommend evaluation on a case-by-case basis. In this case a small gallery of correctly tagged screenshot images was being used to illustrate one of the most noteworthy aspects of Elite - that it was among the first games to be ported to many systems as a result of commercial success and critical acclaim, as opposed to simply being cloned as had happened with most earlier "hit" video games.

While I appreciate that editors feel driven to protect against misuse of copyrighted materials, there is a point where this spills into ["copyright paranoia"] and removal of the gallery here appears to be such an instance. There is no realistic danger of these images being held as copyright infringement and their presentation within this article was firmly within the realms of fair use. If an editor can't clarify the rationale for repeating the revision (removing this gallery again when concerns were addressed) I move that the gallery be restored. Splateagle (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - we should also take into account the fact that Ian Bell has made many versions of Elite (including those in the screenshots) freely available for download on his own pages (The Elite Home Page). I admit this does not mean he has given up his copyright, but it it shows considerable tolerance towards a fair use argument. a_man_alone (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous to call it copyright paranoia and seems a bit self-serving, especially when you have a page full of non-free images (including a screenshot) not being called in to question by myself and others. Likewise, such a point about being a first seems highly WP:OR unless you provide a notable reference discussing the fact. And you skipped the first half of what the statement where it clearly says "usually unacceptable", as in the case by case basis is for the far and few between situations where having a gallery copyrighted images (which screenshots fall under as well if you scroll up that page) absolutely can not be illustrated any other way, and a consensus is generated for it because of that. As mentioned, given the past history of all the other articles on Wikipedia where these galleries have been removed time and time again and showed the exact same thing - different ports of the game, you using a gallery for that point is not notable enough to differentiate it and is just as easily done in the preferred prose. Another words, there is nothing unique about it that can't be simply written out that only an image will illustrate, and having a page full of non-free images plus an entire gallery is once again not using such content sparingly as is called for. In fact, you just proved that point by typing out what you were attempting to illustrate with the gallery. As you saw in the discussion on the project, this page is hardly being singled out, and in fact such content has been removed evenly across the board when seen. Additionally, please continue this discussion (where my actual response and clarification was) over at the video games project talk page, where you see its been an ongoing group consensus, not just one editor's opinion. This article falls under the domain of that project, and group consensus contains significant weight on consensus. If you like, I can file an RFC there specific to this article, to have the members come here and generate a specific case consensus that you're calling for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marty, several points to respond to there and I don't want to swamp the discussion too much so I'll skim some. I moved the specific discussion about this gallery here in order to focus on the Elite article, I'm primarily interested in improving this article, not in setting policy, but I'll happily contribute to the wider discussion on the project page as well. I linked to the copyright paranoia article because I think it describes what's happening here - unproductive distraction from improving the article based on ungrounded fears over copyright issues, it wasn't self serving, I was offering a wider context for my point of view (in much the same way you have with assorted policy links) I find greater understanding of each others' viewpoints is helpful and productive in reaching a consensus which is after all the goal here (not browbeating each other into submission). Getting back on topic, the removed content enhanced the article by illustrating Elite's unusual status in the contemporary video game market, it was one of the earliest games I'm aware of being licensed and ported (as opposed to cloned) onto many systems and the screenshots of various versions illustrates that. It also enjoyed unusual longevity for a video game which the range of dates on screenshots helps to illustrate, these are both unreferenced observations at present which is why they're here in the talk page not out in the article, but neither is far fetched, untrue, or blind opinion, and I intend to research both further as part of improving the article. The question I'm asking (and will also ask later over on the project page I think) is what is being served by removing this content? and does that goal outweigh the value the content adds to the article - my link to the copyright paranoia article was in reference to this. a_man_alone's subsequent suggestion that the game's creator wouldn't object to their use here begs the question of what is being protecting against in removing the gallery? Splateagle (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Splateagle- I agree that the focus should be on improving the article, but we still have to do so within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In regard to what is being protected, because Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia, non-free content must be kept to a minimum. Without the author's expressed consent to freely use the content, it has to comply with WP:NFCC. Even though the author has freely distributed the games, there's a difference between freeware and free software; the former still has copyright restrictions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Guyinblack, I probably wasn't clear in my earlier post - I understand about copyright quite well, and recognise the need to minimise non-free content on Wikipedia, but I think in this case we're missing the right balance between that requirement and developing the article as well as possible within the limits of copyright. Just to be clear the copyright status of the software isn't at issue here - the fair use of screenshots of the software is. Splateagle (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. I was trying to address the issue of what is being protected. Unfortunately, without the author's consent we cannot use screenshots in excess, and a gallery would be excessive. This is just the hard truth of Wikipedia that we all have to learn as we go. Copyrights give an implied amount of protection to intellectual property. That protection is there until the author/owner relinquishes it and we are bound to abide by it.

That being said, I still stand by my view point that a gallery of similar screenshots does not satisfy WP:NFCC 3a (minimal usage) and 8 (significance). The collection can easily be summarized with the statement: "some ports feature minor graphical differences." Sorry, but until consent is given, I have to oppose the inclusion of this gallery or anything similar. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

And so you understand where Guyinblack is coming from Splateagle, and the reason I asked for his neutral opinion here, is because he probably has the most experience out of anyone at the video games project with bringing video game related articles to Good article and Featured article status, which is the actual goal of all articles on Wikipedia. So he's speaking from that experience, and knows exactly what will get by peer review and what will not, and why. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to a_man_alone's comments, presence of free downloadable games in no way denotes any sort of tolerance for free usage of images or even giving up any sort of copyright of said games (unless there's a statement specifically releasing all these games to the public domain). In the spirit of trying to resolve this, since the author does have a web page, if you can get him to put up a statement allowing free usage of screenshots of his games (some authors will do this), then this all becomes a non-issue and this situation is easily resolved. I'd be happy to even contact him about this if you like, and specifically request him to put it up in his faq regarding free non-commercial usage of screenshots of Elite for places like Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get in touch with Ian - I have been in correspondence with him a few times over the years, (of course whether he remembers me is a different matter - one out of many emails and all that,) so will drop him a line. a_man_alone (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just get him to put it up on his website as mentioned, can't use emails alone. Something along the line of screenshots being fine for non-commercial use, and specifically mentioning Wikipedia wouldn't hurt. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding my two cents- I have to agree with Marty that a screenshot gallery doesn't add much to a reader's understanding. The gameplay doesn't look much different from one version to the next. The few cases where I could imagine a port's screenshot be included is something like Pac-Man's Atari 2600 port that was widely criticized or Robotron: 2084's 3D sequel which took the same gameplay and graphics into a 3rd dimension. This game does not look like one of those case.

Looking at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria I'd say such a gallery of similar screenshots would not satisfy criteria 3a (minimal usage) and 8 (significance).

• Minimal usage states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Since the screenshots are not that different from each other and convey the same basic information (the HUD, graphical style, and gameplay mechanics), then there's no need to use six screenshots when one can do the same thing.
• Significance states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." As I stated above, a single screenshot can convey the necessary information. Anything past a single screenshot does not add anymore significance.

Touching on a related topic, the number of covers seems excessive as well. The two sequel covers are not needed as they have their own articles. Sorry. I know images really spruce up an article, but given that the content we're creating here is meant to be free, usage of non-free images has to be kept at a minimum. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Source code

Has the original source code for any of the ports been released by Bell/Braben? Presumably it was written in pure assembly language? 2fort5r (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/bbc/index.htm#src. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

I expanded the Legacy section with a bunch of stuff I had added a long time a go to Space flight simulator game, as well as some magazine reviews. SharkD  Talk  17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

realistic flight model in Elite 2 ???

I remember that enemy ships flew circles around me all the time. They overtook me at their leisure and moved back to my aft without caring at all about my speed or acceleration. On the other hand, my own ship maneuvered faster than physically possible. A complete U-turn in a fraction of a second. This completely killed the game for me. Aroddo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

It used Newtonian mechanics. The reasons the other ships flew around you is because they understood how to do it. If you build up too much speed in one direction, you're a sitting duck. Just because you turned doesn't meant you changed direction, you were slowing down and changing speed relative to your attacker making it appear as if you zoomed off in the other direction. It did make things tougher, but I preferred the realism which no other game has ever dared to attempt; plus you could cut engines and bring your main guns to any direction in order to strafe past your enemy lasers on full. It's a shame the IP is owned by who it is or we'd have many more games like this. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Elite was surely the first space flight 3D game to use Newtonian flight (but then it was the first 3D space flight simulator), but it's not unique to Elite and it's certainly not IP they can protect. Other games have used the same idea to even greater effect, such as Independence War series. Hell, even Asteroids had Newtonian flight (though with drag added).  Xihr  20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No BBC screenshot?

To me, a glaring anomaly - there isn't a screenshot of the actual BBC version, which is where it all started. There's the Electron version, and the Arc version - both Acorn I suppose - but I propose that one of them, Electron I think, is replaced with a genuine BBC screenshot. A cursory glance at commons doesn't return any relevant images, so I'll maybe grab on later in the week. a_man_alone (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have policies that limit the use of non-free images on a page as you were explained earlier - and the page is already past it's maximum. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that would presumably be why I said "replace" not "add" then. a_man_alone (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But the screenshot in the "Gameplay" section is captioned as being the BBC version. Are you saying you think it's actually the Electron version? It's also being used in the BBC Micro article. Miremare 19:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, you changed it already. Good job. Miremare 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

archangel status

i don't think you had to wait till 1991 to get the archangel status, i got it years before on my amstrad cpc, saving some alien race from destruction or something like that. excellent game, maybe best, or at least one of the best ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.166.239 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is true. The third and final mission of the Amstrad CPC version (released 1985) was to liberate a star system that had been invaded by Thargoids. To do this, you had to destroy the system's space station while fending off Thargoid attack ships. You were given an ECM Jammer at the start of the mission to allow you to attack the station with your missiles. Your rewards were the "Archangel" title and getting to keep the ECM jammer device. However, I'm not familiar with PC Elite or Elite Plus, so I think I should let somebody who is better acquainted with them update the article to make it clearer.82.12.164.179 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cover images (Acornsoft/Firebird)

Should the main cover image in the infobox not be the original Acornsoft version? As well as the fact it is the original issue, it serves the article better by showing the spaceship and space station as they are intended to look when not in wireframe graphics. There was a balance in the article with the Acornsoft version of The Dark Wheel cover being included but now I see both the Acornsoft and Firebird novella covers are included (in the wrong order with the Acornsoft version only credited as 'additional'. Bearing in mind we should keep non-free images to a minimum, I would suggest the infobox should carry the original Acornsoft artwork, there should be a thumbnail of the Firebird cover somewhere in the article (as it was used on a number of systems and was the most used cover image) and the Dark Wheel box should only have one version (the original) as the Firebird version doesn't particularly add much.Retro junkie (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Isn't this what we do for books, i.e. show first edition covers where possible? A high quality version is in this blog post, although I think there may have been a previous version hosted here. -- Trevj (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Masters of their universe, The Guardian, Francis Spufford

A number of "facts" in this book and connected article in The Guardian by Francis Spufford are alleged to be poorly researched. They can't be replaced with those posted by Wouter Scholten because that would amount to original research. The problem is that we don't know what's reliable and what's not: therefore I propose that all such references be removed. -- Trevj (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether a software sales figure is "respectable" compared to the number of systems sold is a matter of interpretation. All that the Wikipedia article should do is provide reliable sources on 1) the number of copies sold for a system and 2) the number of machines of that system sold, and the reader can draw his own conclusions. Of course mentioning the number of systems next to the number of copies only makes sense when that comparison is somehow interesting (i. e. it is a large ratio), but I think that's the maximum of editorial voice that we should allow. However, given that all these figures seem to be somewhat unreliable/disputed, it may be best to simply go (back?) to those figures that can be documented by reliable sources. Only when both the number of copies and the number of systems sold gets reliable figures should they be added back (assuming there still is a high ratio). Nczempin (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Wouter article merely mentions "other sources". Things would be much easier if we were given those sources, and ideally someone would check them. Until then, the Guardian article is the most reliable source we have by Wikipedia standards, and a website quoting a mailing list is very far from a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (despite my opinion that the web page makes a fairly convincing argument). Nczempin (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV/weasely statements and the Wouter reference (the link is still here on the discussion page, in this section). Until those references can be cited that contradict the 150,000, the Guardian article is the most reliable source we have. Nczempin (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fair enough about keeping what's considered to be a reliable source. And retaining the disputed template is helpful to readers of the article. -- Trevj (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What book? Giving the name of one chapter within a longer book does not make it easy to decide on the rights and wrongs of an argument. Fortunately the linked Guardian article does have the sense to give the book title correctly. Surely the complete chapter in the book would be a more reliable source than an extract within an article in a newspaper?MidlandLinda (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether we use the book or the article which is "an edited extract" of the book is irrelevant. If the claimed facts are not true, then the result is the same. -- Trevj (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

twitter.com/jontycampbell 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Here is the reference to the mail in card for Elite Rating:

"Backroom Boys" by Francis Spufford, ISBN 978-0571214976, p112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiojonty (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The video for the music track 'Pump Up The Volume' by M.A.R.S features screenshots of the Game Elite superimposed over NASA film footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGPhUr-T6UM#t=2m29s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.224.135 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not been linked to reliable sources, so inclusion is original research. Regardless of any possible previous inclusion, we need sources. Any such info would also ideally need to be worked into the article text, because we avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. -- Trevj (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What more reliable source do you need than the actual video? 217.42.202.71 (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Did you read about no original research? Just because it's recognisable to us from the video doesn't mean our policies agree it should be included without discussion elsewhere (either a computer or music magazine, I guess). -- Trevj (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Current status of Elite games?

I'd like to discuss the statement in the article which reads, In 1999/2000, a dispute occurred between Ian Bell and David Braben regarding the former's decision to make available all versions of the original Elite. The dispute has now ended; the various versions are available on Bell's site. The two Frontier games are available for download from Braben's Elite Club website.

• The claim that "the dispute has now ended" needs to be cited with a WP:RS, such as an assertion by Braben himself in which he acknowledges that this game may now be legally downloaded from the Web. I added a "citation needed" tag for the time being, but the statement should really be deleted unless it can be reliably substantiated. It implies that it's legal to obtain the original Elite game from Bell's site. We *have* to be certain that this is correct (i.e. no relevant parties currently would dispute its freeware status), otherwise Wikipedia is potentially contributing to copyright infringement. I'm rather suspicious of this claim for the following reason: An Internet Archive cache of Braben "Elite FAQ" from November 18, 2007, includes the statement, "A third party has claimed that Ian Bell has sold his rights in Elite to them but Ian has not yet confirmed this. The end result is it is not legal, but I do not mind this as long as the copyright messages are intact, and it is not done for commercial gain, but be warned as the other copyright holder may object." However, while Braben was saying it's "not legal", the article at that time included the same text as it does now about the dispute having been resolved and the games being downloadable on Bell's site. At the time at least, the article's statement was misleading...and may still be unless new developments in Elite's legal status have taken place over the last five years. Does anyone happen to know?

• Braben's Elite Club now seems solely dedicated to Kickstarting development on Elite: Dangerous. I could not find downloads of the two Frontier games on that site, so the article's statement on this point may contain outdated information. (It also should be noted that, according to Braben's "Elite FAQ", the Frontier games previously available on the Elite Club were shareware versions of the games).

--Mike Agricola (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment from me before I look further afield. With regard to this statement "(i.e. no relevant parties currently would dispute its freeware status)" - that is definitely not the case, and neither Bell nor Braben have ever stated that it's now freeware in any shape or form - just that as copyright holder Bell permits download. There's an important difference. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A copyrighted work who's rights-holder permits free distribution is exactly the definition of freeware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.250.4 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See Gratis versus libre. I think "free as in beer" applies here. SharkD  Talk  15:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Elite series article needed

Could someone create an Elite series article, because the relation to the sequels are easily missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperspaceCloud (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page needs renaming

It wasn't/isn't a video game, it was/is a computer game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.201.254 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A version of Elite appeared on the NES, and as I understand it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_1#.22Video_game.22_for_articles_that_cover_both the categorisation 'video game' is intended to cover computer games that also appeared on consoles. Aegidian (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Even without the NES version, the naming conventions for computer and video game articles explicitly say that "The disambiguator "(video game)" should be used instead of "(computer game)", "(arcade game)" or similar disambiguation." --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Should the sequels be mentioned in the first paragraph, or further down the lead? And should we maybe bump the classic/influential/groundbreaking stuff up to the lead paragraph? I moved the sequel details to the end of the section yesterday, but User:HyperspaceCloud reverted me on the grounds that readers should be made more aware of the underappreciated sequels. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I had to decline the WP:3O request relating to this ssection, because WP:3O does require that the issue have first been discussed thoroughly on the article talk page (not a user talk page). This is important, because the watchers of this page may not be watching the editors' own talk pages. Frustrating as this is, the article has 123 page watchers, which is not particularly low, so I hope that other editors may offer views. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of stuff added by HyperspaceCloud. I am personally against mentioning the sequels in such a prominent way - the second sentence in the lede. The fact that they're "underappreciated" or "often overlooked" is not something to be addressed and re-balanced by Wikipedia.

The sequels have their own section, and each title has its own page. I think that's enough coverage in an article that is not actually about each game, regardless of the connection.

I'm not even sure that the sequels need mentioning in the lede at all, but if consensus thinks so, I would say as a final sentence at the end.

HyperspaceCloud states "The sequels had more important innovations which shouldn't be overlooked and the games have been important to the Elite series as a whole" on his talk page. This may be true, but this article is not about those games, nor is it about any innovations they made. It's about the original Elite game. Any innovations made by sequels should be kept to the sequels page, or mentioned in passing on the "Sequels" section - but that is not a valid reason to mention them in the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

With no further comments in the week since I raised this, I've gone ahead and restructured the lede, attempting to list statements in order of their significance. I've also cut the university Braben and Bell met at, and reduced the creeping list of inspired games ("Space Rogue, Eve Online, Freelancer, Jumpgate, Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Wing Commander: Privateer, Pardus, the Escape Velocity series, the X series, Star Citizen, No Man's Sky and Grand Theft Auto") to just the two obvious big ones, Eve and GTA - although the source given only appears to actually mention GTA.

Further feedback welcome. --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am against mentioning other games before the sequels, also Elite had a big influence on Wing Commander and Freelancer, it baffled me why this is removed. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite influenced so many games that a complete list would be either impossible, or take up more room than the actual article itself. My own favourite - Hardwar - is also missing from the list, but hey ho. I would ideally like to remove all "influenced" games unless it's sourced by a review or external commentary but I doubt that will happen. Instead perhaps a single example from each genre,w chih is why GTA is a good example.

I'm actually against mentioning the sequels at all in the lede in such detail - I think it would be sufficient to mention that several sequels were released, and let the list be expanded later in the article.

It's more important to mention influenced games rather than sequels because an influenced game is rarely released by the same company and authors and shows that external companies regarded the game as important. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The provided source for the list only discussed GTA. Feel free to add any of those back with an attached source, although we shouldn't overload the paragraph with that many examples. Given that the chronology of sequels and inspirations goes Frontier/Encounters/GTA/Eve/Dangerous I'd say it reads better to list the other games before the sequels. --McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Could User:Hyperspacecloud explain why they are "against mentioning other games before the sequels"? The impact of Elite on other games occurred during the sequels rather than after them, so it'd be clearer to mention it first. It also seems more important to the game itself. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The sequels are a continuation of the Elite timeline and happened many years before all the other games except Wing Commander: Privateer HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Except for the currently-beta Dangerous sequel, which post-dates all of them.

I think the flow of "Elite was a revolutionary 1984 videogame, it proved hugely influential, later it had sequels" seems a clearer and more natural summary than "Elite was a revolutionary 1984 game, later it had sequels, it proved hugely influential". Your structure also suggest that the sequels were also influential, when it's really just the original Elite that has that legacy. --McGeddon (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous follows the Elite timeline and is set 50 years after Frontier: First Encounters (Elite 3) and the sequels were definitely influential as they introduced some major features that weren't in the original, like buying new ships and the jobs in the BBS and living society, the latter two are explicitly talked about by the GTA reference Gary Penn, which also happened to work on the documentation of Frontier: Elite 2, also NMS and Infinity's (sadly removed from the list) planetary transitions, so the sequels are implied. Elite is a whole series, it's not just the original game. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Penn mentions the GTA team having Frontier, Elite, Syndicate and Mercenary "very much in their minds" and concludes that the first GTA was "basically Elite in a city". Other quotes are "The game that most captured me on the Commodore 64 was Elite, the prime motivator of EVE" and No Man's Sky's "if you think back to games like Elite". The impact of the original, iconic 1980s game seems more significant. --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

elite.frontier.co.uk

User:HyperspaceCloud is keen to link to http://elite.frontier.co.uk as the "official site" of Elite, but the site is about Elite: Dangerous and I can't find a single sentence anywhere on the site that actually talks about the 1984 game. If there's no longer an official site for the original videogame, that's fine, the article links to Ian Bell's website and others. It doesn't help the reader to present the "official" site of a subject which offers zero information about that subject.

Is there a page on elite.frontier.co.uk somewhere which could be regarded as the official home page of 1984's Elite?--McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Elite forums are on the frontier forums. http://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=8 Elite fiction is set in the same universe http://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=45 Elite is a whole franchise and trademark owned by Frontier Developments, who is involved in all the community events and news happening around Elite. They even sell original Elite merchandise https://store.zaonce.net/merchandise.html The Elite banner here http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/older/ links to their site. Their other Elite page http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/elite/ which has a link to http://www.facebook.com/elitegame which recently got renamed to https://www.facebook.com/EliteDangerousOfficial (still same content) also has all Elite stuff, they forgot to change the link. It also links to the Elite and ED newsletter link http://elite.frontier.co.uk/register which also got renamed (still same content) and official forums http://www.frontier.co.uk/forums HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were linking to the Dangerous site and labelling it as the official site of Elite, which it used to be but isn't any more. Per WP:ELNO we should not link to a page about a different game which is "only indirectly related to the article's subject", but if that site had a specific page about Elite, we could link to that directly. --McGeddon (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversions section: 1337 for Oric machines

With reference to the justification for undoing my edit that "worth mentioning" and "noted" are not encyclopedic, by user User:Chaheel_Riens citing previous edits and discussion for OOlite:

• I fail to understand why the term "worth mentioning" cannot be accepted while at the same time the adjective "notable" (which is more or less a synonym for "worth mentioning") was accepted in the previous sentence describing Oolite?
• In any case, to reach consensus I propose to replace "worth mentioning" with "successful", as the section begins by stating that most attempts at conversions were abandoned, whereas OOlite and 1337 both are successful conversions.
• As to "noted", I did not use this term, you are mistaken: to ease the transition with the sentence following my edit, the exact words I used were :"on a different note" -- this was meant to emphasize the difference between conversions of the game (OOlite and 1337), and a modified version of the original game code through reverse-engineering (Elite: The New Kind).

I look forward to your feedback and advice on these points before reinserting a corrected and more suitable version of my edit. --Capsicum75 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First point just sounds like a tone issue - Wikipedia can report that something was considered "notable", but it's inappropriately chatty for the voice of Wikipedia to tell the reader that something is "worth mentioning". The whole paragraph about fan versions really needs some reliable secondary sources, though. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

VideoGameHistorian & Seminal edits.

Please discuss your opinions here, instead of using edit summaries which are both inaccurate and too short to get points across. Accusing other editors of vandalism is not going to endear anybody to you, so before you hit the 3RR, discuss here - thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral viewpoint is not a matter of opinion, it is about following the rules.

Adding sensationalist adjectives like "seminal" is a clear violation of the neutrality rule.

I have accepted "seminal" as an adjective for the procedural generation engine as a compromise, being slightly more appropriate in reference there.

Since a user keeps reverting several minor changes in fell swoops including deleting new hyperlinks and not keeping an edit history this is clear vandalism which I will revert on sight.

The mention of earlier titles is as appropriate in the first paragraph as the mention of later titles.

Elite did not invent the concept of "space trading games" , which needs to be clear in the very first paragraph, certainly not under "technical innovation".

The logical conclusion is that later titles are not necessarily based on Elite and mentioning them is redundant as they are already listed in the referenced space flight combat simulator list.

VideoGameHistorian (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term "seminal" may appear subjective at face value, but it is also used in multiple sources to describe the game, ergo it is appropriate for the lede:

• "Elite Dangerous is the seminal game reimagined for the 21st Century"[2]
• "Elite contains many industry firsts and is the seminal 3D space trading and combat game."[3]
• "Braben, whose seminal games Elite and Frontier have inspired more than 34,000 people..."[4]

I have looked through the edit history - there is no evidence at all of any user "not keeping an edit history", or of "missing edit summary". Where are these transgressions? Your definition of vandalism does not match everybody elses, so I'd advise you to stop as upon the next reversion we'll be off to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to see what they think of it.

The logical conclusion is that when multiple editors revert a single editor the latter editor needs to reconsider his position. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

it is used in marketing sources, therefore inappopriate

the logical conclusion of multiple editors refusing to follow Rule 2 is that either a marketing department or fans are controlling this page who are obviously lacking neutrality and objectivity about this product.

If you want to create a biased fansite outside of Wikipedia please do so, this is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool. VideoGameHistorian (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on your breaking of 3RR alone - not counting a refusal to listen or accept consensus - it's off to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring we go. Can't say you weren't warned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• There definitely needs to be some discussion here among all parties about how this content should appear. I've already blocked VGH based on the noticeboard report; I'd hate to have to block other editors or protect the article, but if there's future edit warring and it's necessary, I will. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead ComputerandVideoGames Link

This link is cited, but is now dead http://www.computerandvideogames.com/78368/features/games-that-changed-the-world-elite/

There is at least part of the article here http://web.archive.org/web/20120702064537/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/78368/features/games-that-changed-the-world-elite

Unfortunately, it appears to be only the first page of three.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A complete Archive can be found here http://web.archive.org/web/20070211011328/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=78368 and has been added to the article SHOlafsson (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment

This article was requested to have a reassessment via the video games project template. I am leaving the article at C-class, High-importance; some suggestions for improvement are included below.

• There are many single- or two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article, starting with the lead- these should be combined into regular paragraphs.
• "Gameplay" is almost entirely unreferenced.
• It's pretty unreasonble to state that a 1984 game is the yardstick that space trading games are compared to with a source from 1985. It may have set a new bar, but it's been 30 years- we need a newer source to say it's still the yardstick.
• Most of the "technical innovations" section would be better off as part of a "development" section, since it describes how the game was built.
• "Influences, development and launch" should be just "development", with "launch" merged with "Packaging and Marketing" to be "Marketing and release".
• Sales numbers are typically included in reception, not development/launch.
• Chunks of "Packaging and marketing" are unreferenced
• "The Dark Wheel plot synopsis" has a lot of clumsy writing- awkward sentences and vague references ("he makes a trade that is sure to bring his father's killer to him").
• Really, there's some awkward constructions throughout, like "reception"s "with Sophie Wilson calling it "the game that couldn't have been written"".
• You talk about the legacy of the game in both the first and fourth paragraph of "Reception"; keep it together.
• There's... actually almost no reception in the "reception" section; you have Beebug's review, CGW's mention from 6 years later, some discussion of Elite Plus, and a bit of retrospective that would be better off with the rest of the legacy. The table lists 8 reviews for several platforms; these should be used for this section beyond their numerical score.
• "Conversions" goes into too many details, should be named "Ports" or "Additional releases", and should be before reception, not after it, since you talk about the reception of these ports, such as Elite Plus.
• "Sequels is mostly unreferenced.
• There are a few "citation needed" and "disputed" tags on the article that need to be addressed
• The main problem with the article as it stands is that while it has a bunch of great information, it's not very well organized, and it's not sourced in a lot of spots. Cleaning up what's already there would get it to B-class, while sourcing the holes and filling out reception would get it to GA. --PresN 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful (although not much of the text is actually mine :). Regarding the disputed sources, how can you see why they are so declared? Shouldn't there be something regarding it here on the talk page? I will do my best on the points above, but since I am not a native English speaker I will probably leave some things as is (like the dark Wheel synposis). SHOlafsson (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed talk sections are archived, they're at Talk:Elite (video game)/Archive 1 - specifically, here. The dispute is about reference 16, saying that the source book for the article makes a claim about the sales figures (that they were almost a 1-to-1 ratio with the sames figures of the BBC Micro itself) that is poorly researched, given that the stated sales number for the BBC Micro is wrong. This statement seems to have been removed from the article since then; it's only used to source information about the games marketing and rights to port it to another system. Given that the Guardian is a reliable source, I'd be fine with you just removing the "disputed" tag from the reference. --PresN 23:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think I have come about as far as I will and would ask if you would kindly look it over for any last minute remarks. I could not find a reference online for the Edge Retro reception remark and don't have the magazine (it's mentioned in the Edge magazine article, but not even referenced there), remove it? SHOlafsson (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better; my main comment left is that there's still a bunch of 1 or 2-sentence paragraphs that should get merged together. Don't bother putting it up for reassessment via the template, since I'm pretty much the only one who is responding to those right now; instead, go to WT:VG and just ask for people to look at it directly. Someone there might have the Edge review as well. Bumping this up to B, since my main concerns were addressed. --PresN 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to Starflight?

An unnamed user recently adjusted the article to add Starflight to the See Also section, claiming "Starflight is often mentioned along with its contemporary, Elite, which had come out two years earlier and featured similar gameplay, as breaking new ground for open world space exploration". (They also made a similar edit to the Star Control page at the same time). Do we have any sources to back this up, and to show if that game is mentioned more than others (say, the X series)? If so, this is probably worth expanding in the article itself, rather than just adding a See Also entry to something not mentioned elsewhere. If not, I'm not sure there are grounds for this being kept. Aawood (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against it being in the "See Also". The point of See Also is that it does contain things that are not mentioned in the main article. I looked up a couple of sources, and they do tend to mention both Starflight and Elite in the same sentence, although there's a definite American bias in the way Starflight is favoured, despite Elite beating it to release by two years. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elite (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elitehomepage.org/thirty/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

From Elite to Vendetta Online

Vendetta looks like modern version of Elite. The player interface is in colour but too much of the game is the same why it's Vendetta Online is not even mention in the text BUT 'Eve online' is which is far more removed from elite game than Vendetta. Eve online is not even first person shoot-em up where Vendetta Online is double for Elite. Please will someone check out Vendetta Online. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.3.38 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Date format

The dates in the article is supposed to be in day-month-year (DMY) format. However, @Lordtobi has changed the dates to a month-day-year (MDY) format. I've recently changed to a DMY format per MOS:DATETIES. The article is written in British English since the {{EngvarB}} maintenance template was placed, and because Elite has strong ties to the United Kingdom, then the dates should use in DMY format. There was no explaination to why the dates were changed to a MDY format. – // Hounder4 // 20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the unpleasant override, but in the end, the article really only had four dmy dates visibly changed, and a handful of dmy dates in citations, while about 80% of citation dates were ymd (the ugliest format), and some even mdy. I skipped over the article quickly while checking Frontier Developments' backlog and did not see the very few dmy dates out of the many ymd's, so, again, sorry. A side thing though is that this article does not really have a strong tie; strong ties are considered as historical events, places in or people of a country. I will not contest the date format change regardless. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 20:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Must have misread MOS:STRONGNAT, I might keep that in mind. Articles on video games doesn't have any strong ties (not sure), so I realised. – // Hounder4 // 21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A "strong tie" doesn't have to be historical, (although it could be argued that as Elite is over 30 years old, it is indeed a historical event,) it just has to have overriding elements connected to any given country. Usain Bolt isn't a historical event, but is included as an example of when Jamaican language should be used. In this regard Elite falls into this category. MOS:STRONGNAT is actually quite vague, it's inclusive not exclusive in explanation, specifically so that esoteric examples cannot be excluded on the grounds of "Well, it isn't covered under MOS:STRONGNAT..." Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)