Jump to content

Talk:MAG (video game): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
importance
Line 5: Line 5:


I'm pretty sure the trailer was all pre-rendered, and all the sites that actually have articles on MAG say that its genre is just "action," except [http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/mag/index.html Gamespot who said it was first-person]. [[User:Padishar|Padishar]] ([[User talk:Padishar|talk]]) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the trailer was all pre-rendered, and all the sites that actually have articles on MAG say that its genre is just "action," except [http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/mag/index.html Gamespot who said it was first-person]. [[User:Padishar|Padishar]] ([[User talk:Padishar|talk]]) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, the trailer was a prerendered trailer. All we can do at this point is follow [[WP:V]] and find as many sources as we can to do to verify the infomation within this article. If a source says that it's third-person, then we'll keep it. If we find no sources that say this, then we need to remove it. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] ([[User talk:Dposse|talk]]) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, the trailer was a prerendered trailer. All we can do at this point is follow [[WP:V]] and find as many sources as we can to do to verify the infomation within this article. If a source says that it's third-person, then we'll keep it. If we find no sources that say this, then we need to remove it. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] ([[User talk:Dposse|talk]]) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTIt


It looks like FF, doesn't it?


== Move? ==
== Move? ==

Revision as of 18:29, 1 May 2009

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
A request for identifying art has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:Playstationp

Third-Person Shooter?

I'm pretty sure the trailer was all pre-rendered, and all the sites that actually have articles on MAG say that its genre is just "action," except Gamespot who said it was first-person. Padishar (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the trailer was a prerendered trailer. All we can do at this point is follow WP:V and find as many sources as we can to do to verify the infomation within this article. If a source says that it's third-person, then we'll keep it. If we find no sources that say this, then we need to remove it. dposse (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTIt


It looks like FF, doesn't it?

Move?

I think that this page should be moved to a new title, "MAG: Massive Action Game". The logo for the game shows "MAG" on top, and "Massive Action Game" on bottom, similar to Resistance: Fall of Man. Here are sources: [1], [2], [3]. What do you think? dposse (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Page should be moved. Padishar (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. First of all, at the press conference where it was announced, it was only referred to by its acronym - MAG, see [here]. Also, sources 1 and 2 that you listed refer to MAG as a "placeholder name" for Massive Action Game. Scapler (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that it is most likely a placeholder name. However, we have no other name at the moment. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Until they can come up with an official name, all we have is the logo to go by and the reliable sources stated above. We already have in the introduction that "MAG: Massive Action Game is the tentative title". dposse (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, mostly because it sounds stupid. 68.192.158.134 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is not a valid reason. dposse (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Going by either the logo (MAG: Massive Action Game) or by the spoken word (MAG, short for Massive Action Game), MAG has been an important moniker that should be a part of the page title. Now, as to whether the page should be "MAG" or "MAG: Massive Action Game", that debate is nulled by the fact that a Mag page already exists. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It could just be "MAG (video game)" then. Padishar (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, The games name is "Massive Action Game" MAG is just an acronym. So it should NOT be MAG: Massive Action Game. Although it could be "Massive Actione Game" as that is the full name. It does sounds stupid that a title of a game is an acronym which is then explained... You don't see WoW: World of Warcraft... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.62.202 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain this: "Various final titles are being considered for the game, including MAG: Shadow War; MAG: Zero; MAG: Global Assault and MAG: Final Hour.[4][5]" dposse (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The MAG in these titles stands FOR "Massive Action Game". Massive Action Game: Shadow War, Massive Action Game: Zero, etc. However, the placeholder name is not called MAG: Massive Action Game, that would end up being (in full) Massive Action Game: Massive Action Game. Scapler (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. On the official Sony Playstation forum they have it listed as MAG (Massive Action Game)

It should be moved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.163.42 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Something about the references doesn't look right. Most other articles use template: cite web, and I think in this case, the article should follow suit. BioShock is an excellent example, because it's a FA, so my opinion is that the reference format should be changed. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all done in MLA Style, which according to WP:References is an acceptable style. Wikipedia's policy states: "any of these styles [APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.] is acceptable on Wikipedia...you should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one." Scapler (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's okay then. I just think it'd look better using the web template. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]