Talk:Superfrog

Video games Low‑importance

This 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (3 participants)
Delibird (10 participants)
Melee weapon (3 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Julia Chang (7 participants)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (7 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (10 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

How many colors did Superfrog use?

I would like to know.--TheGreatGiannaSisters 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Amiga games of the time were using either 32 or 64, most likely it'd be the latter. Squirminator2k 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In non-AGA (Amiga 600, 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000, and CDTV), 64 colours means that the second half of the palette (32) would be half-brightness versions of the first 32 colours. I have a feeling that "half-brite" mode was used rarely in games, although it is of course quite possible that Team 17 used it in SuperFrog and/or some of their other games, being a bunch of very ambitious people. --Peter Knutsen 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

The Superfrog sound track can be found if you look. if interesed, askuser:Gabrielsimon for a copy, its public domain.

This belongs in the talk page, not in the article. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, you can download the soundtrack from Dream17 anyway :) Squirminator2k 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level codes

Wikipedia is not a cheat/code database. They are readily available on lots of sites, for examples here, here or here. The first site is linked in the article. startaq 11:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

information bout the game is also contained in these, so since thats true, its placed here. Gabrielsimon 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks is the correct place for cheats/level codes, gaming guides etc. Only general game info should be in the wikipedia. Also see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Cheats.2FLevel_codes. Please don't revert the changes again and join the discussion there instead if you don't agree. startaq 21:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

infromation is onformation, what your proposing is censorship. Gabrielsimon 23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide to how to play a game or how to cheat at a game. Its intention is to give a broad overview of the game. If you have questions about what sort of content is suitable for a computer and video game related article please look at WikiProject Computer and video games. Guides, cheats, etc are for Wikipedia's sister-project Wikibooks. More specifically see Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf. K1Bond007 00:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

i see no problem adding these codes here, because if you wish to experiance the whole thing, and you find something hard to get past, its nice to be able to keep going. Gabrielsimon 00:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If removal of non-encyclopedic information is censorship, then should we allow every spot-faced teenager to write an article about how k3wl sk1llZ they have in Quake XXVII? I tend to agree with User:Startaq here. But I still think we should add a link to the cheat codes, instead of the codes themselves. — JIP | Talk 12:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment request

I am not granting any assessment further than Start for the moment. There are no reliable sources at all (the four in-line citations appear strongly dubious). Please try to source the article's facts and find reliable sources discussing its notability, and I'm sure this will be C-Class worthy in no time. :) Salvidrim! 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how to go about doing that. I can add more sources, but what's more reliable as a source of information about a game than a fansite about it, links to game summaries, and reviews? Reviews are going to show bias, a fan site is a good source of information but will obviously have a slant, and game summaries - as written by the developers - will trying to be sell the product. I don't mean to be difficult, but what sort of source am I meant to add which isn't dubious? Pookiyama (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given a good read to our page about reliable sources? A list of those specifically about video games already deemed reliable through discussion is also available at WP:VG/S. Reviews by reliable sites are excellent for estabilishing a game's notability, but not always best for fact-checking (though generally passable). Fansites are a big no-no, both for notability (for obvious reasons) and for fact-checking (as per all user- or fan-generated content with no expert editorial oversight). Game summaries written by the game's staff and that appear official in some way are excellent for fact-checking (gameplay elements, credits, plot, release information), but do not establish notability. For development information, the best sources are often interviews with the game's staff. A good start is to conduct a custom Google search in our established reliable sources; the results look substantial. :) Salvidrim! 14:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]