Talk:Need for Speed: World
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Has this game been official announced for the Wii platform, as the article states? I follow a lot of Nintendo news and I haven't heard of this, and after a quick scout around the internet I can't seem to determine whether or not World Online is coming to the Wii. We need to reference this information.--LostOverThere (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Not free anymore !
- It seems as though you're one of the "Electronic Arts isn't doing enough" people. The game is free to play until level 10. After that, while you can still play it, the game won't progress further until you pay to get the starter kit. You can play the game until kingdom come without paying. Petman1325 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
World is free2play now, see article. Loonybin0 18:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A couple things about World are incorrect here. First, there is no co-op play currently in the game or planned. Secondly, players are not able to play as police in the game. Also, World is Free-to-play. These need to be removed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NFSKirk (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can't you remove the errors yourself? You're free to edit the content . I don't know anything about this game, so I'm not going to modify the article's contents. talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (
Car List Layout
Whoever last edited the car list from being a single column to three did a pretty good job, but if I might make a few suggestions:
1) Instead of marking some vehicles as "(previously) only available as a free gift", include EA's own catchphrase "Top-Up". Perhaps something like,
2) I guess just generally a little more detail: cars that can be purchased for in-game cash (IGC) only, cars with police versions without lights, cars from special events like Rose and the Beast from Valentine's day, other art director cars, promotional/unique cars like the A1 Clubsport and the Team NFS Z4 GT3, classic cars vs current cars maybe. These are things I will work on when I have the chance, but would appreciate some help. I'd like this to be a handy reference for players. Thanks.
Loonybin0 04:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am also thinking about a section detailing the difference between in-game cash and speedboost, and how it will soon be switched to EA's new universal f2p currency (announced on World's website 10/14/2011).
Loonybin0 18:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Last paragraph removed
EA have released patches for World, failing to mention to users what is being download automatically onto their systems without authorisation or confirmation. The latest patches have had no affect to World. EA need to pull their finger out if they want World to be as successful like the previous Need for Speeds (Most Wanted and Carbon)
Horribly written, and completely biased.
There should be warning that (as of january 2011) this game has very serious bugs that prevent people to fully enjoy it. These bugs include out of sync cars during races - sometimes even 2-3 seconds difference. (Some cars start seconds before others, some cars suddenly "jump" before others during race, sometimes you finish race just to see several other people finish after you with better time than you, etc.)
There are many reports of different crashes of this game. This game should be considered a free game and compared to free games. It is not done so properly as other new commercial titles.
I cannot edit this page to add it by myself, so I'm writing on talk page.
- Unfortunately, unless commented on by reliable sources, bugs aren't a notable occurrence. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
then at least acknowledge that there were major changes after v5, multiplayer is borked and the game is basically pay2win , the drop rate is too low, its highly unlikely getting the best parts for free... im not asking to flame the game but at least warn new players what their going to get when they try it. their support forum is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Forums are not considered to be reliable sources. I'll grant that from personal experience, everything you point out is true, but the fact is that this encyclopedia runs on verifiability. Without reputable sources making similar claims (sorry, but forum post do not count), the mention cannot be made. 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If you really want to write about bugs and issues, you can use this as a starting point since complaints on forums isnt enough. (original post is by a developer stating there are issues with the game for a few weeks and past patches were ineffective so there might be a server shutdown/roll-back of sorts in the near future)
Can we say that NFSW has the longest roads?
I discover that NFSW has the longest roads from this site but undercover has only 175 km of roads. so NFSW is longer.lets talk about it if we want to put that info in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kaiser (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Source codes ?
Let4time: great of you to mention this, but are you referring to one source code (has been opened) or several (have been opened) ? I'm not familiar with this so please make that minor correction. Also, it would be worth to specify what a person can do with that source code, from a layman's viewpoint. It would also look better if the link would be integrated in the text rather than separate. Thanks! Fireflood (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The game is not open-source. A component integrating web-browser into the launcher was open-sourced because it modifies the LGPL sources from WebKit project, thus inheriting the open-source license. Same component is used in Origin. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? The list is a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT, since lists of concepts (cars in this case) should be avoided. ZappaOMati 03:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you want it to be kept? The list violates WP:GAMECRUFT. ZappaOMati 02:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Except you will be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring if you do so for more than 3 times in 24 hours. Besides, people can just look it up at sources like this and this. ZappaOMati 02:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Then can you provide a reliable source for the new cars? ZappaOMati 22:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand the logic here. First you say, the list can't be included because of WP:GAMECRUFT. I have looked there, and I have yet to see the motivation for this rule. Then you argue that there is not a reliable source for the current car list following reliable source. Why couldn't you simply reference the game itself? e.g.
"Need For Speed World". Version number (shown on game launcher last I checked). Date of version (being a constantly updated game, the access date is probably sufficient). Electronic Arts Studios & Quicklime Games (formerly EA Black Box). Date of access.
- ...using MLA. -Loonybin0 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- You see, the IP said that the sources I provided listed only the "original car list", which does not include the newer additions, so I need a reliable source to include the newer vehicles. Meanwhile, the GAMECRUFT reason is listed at #6, as the car list is simply a list of vehicles, which is inappropriate. ZappaOMati 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...using MLA. -Loonybin0 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Current status (cheating issue)
I'm not really happy with my edit in terms of references but I'm struggling to imagine one, let alone find one. Is there a policy about these situations? There almost certainly won't be any official sources on the subject, yet the issue is real and easily confirmed by "original research". Bahati (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I can go look for a policy or such on that, but is there any review or something from a reliable source (WP:VG/S) that talks a little about it? ZappaOMati 14:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- No such review that I know of. It's a 2010 title and it would need to be a recent review and reviewers from major, and thus reputable, outlets seldom mention cheating. Finding an intersection of recent, unorthodox and reliable in this instance seems impossible to me. Bahati (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Links to online fora
Some of the references in this article are to the game's online fora. There are two problems with this, both in relation to the current game and games more generally:
- An unreliable source. The fora do not provide guaranteed useful, meaningful commentary or input. A player comment in a game forum does not need to be fact-based, and is as relevant as a random email or a text message. The player does not necessarily have the necessary subject matter understanding to be able to add meaningful input, and linking to a forum comment could as easily be linking to a troll as to a well-known and knowledgeable member of the community. There is a minor exception to this, in that comments on an official game forum by a representative of the game publisher can reasonably be taken as an official statement (e.g. this post, which appears to be from a game representative.
- A time-limited resource. I was in fact surprised to find a result using the link above, as a lot of fora get taken down quite soon after the game is taken off-line.
I recommend that links to a game forum should be very carefully considered, and if there is a more trustworthy and stable source for the information that should be used. In instances where the forum entry is written by a 'publisher representative' - or in exceptional cases, by a 'community leader', then the information referenced should really carry a caveat regarding the reliability and long-term usefulness of the source. Even in such circumstances, a published article or a press release would provide a more reliable and stable source.
While I have recommended this, I have not yet updated the article, pending input from others on this topic within this page and genre. It is also potentially something that belongs somewhere in the Wikipedia writing guidelines (in fact, I see that it is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, under "Self-published sources (online and paper)", as well as under the subject heading "Self-published sources" within Wikipedia:Verifiability).
Maybe the video game genre presents a 'special case', given the ubiquity of fora - or maybe not. I would appreciate thoughts regarding this article and the broader genre, before I add to my bucket list "remove all forum references from video game articles". Ambiguosity (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)