Talk:Wheelman (video game)

Mentioning GoldenEye...

Is that really necessary? Hardly the only game featuring a toggle "crouching system"...

Swiiman (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

IGN Review

IGN's Wheelman review has been met with much controversy in the comments section and in the IGN forum for Wheelman, should a mention be made? [1][2] --Elven6 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, IGN's review was really controversial. Yeah, I think that a mention should be made in the Reception field. But I don't know if it's allowed in here in Wikipedia. ShifterBr (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, IGN is well-known to sell its “reviews”. Everything on there is bought and fake. But that should have been obvious to anyone who bought the games they recommended. — 94.220.246.39 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Game's title.

The Wheelman or Wheelman? I'll go with Wheelman like many sites like Gamespot and IGN (And the game's own press material) calls it. If that's the case, the game's article name should be renamed as Wheelman. ^{ShifterBr (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)}

The game's name is Wheelman but early on I think it was referred to as The Wheelman. --Elven6 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the name was changed at some point, quite early so there's hopefully not too much out there with the wrong name. The current name is correct. JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

game plug vs. encyclopedic article

i came here to learn what a wheelman is. i mean, i can put it together by myself reading the article about the video game, but shouldn't the lemma be wheelman_(game) and this article be a stub about what a wheelman actually is? - .~. 79.198.112.245 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an article about what a wheelman actually is. But with it now becoming clearer and clearer, what a huge failure Wikipedia (with its admins on a egocentrc trip, the lie about “neutrality” [which is physically impossible], and the “no original research” policy keeping it as far away from actual proper reasoning and proof as possible) actually is, who gives a fuck about Wikipedia anymore anyway? I recommend to make your own Wikipedia! Controlled by you. — 94.220.246.39 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

the reviews

those review sites are also really obscure, overly positive while this game was bashed by almost everyone Markthemac (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I actually played the game, and it’s pretty damn fun. The graphics are good. It’s just a good game. The story is pretty simple and linear. But as soon as you played some car chase rampages, your only answer to the story is: Well, who gives a fuck about that? ^^ It’s a game after all. Not a book.
So being one who has checked it first hand, I can tell you that the reviews are mostly bullshit. And sorry, where did you get your “almost everyone” from? Is it the same “almost everyone” that FOX News uses to push its talking points? — 94.220.246.39 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reviews are bad, it’s actually a great game.

I'm playing this right now, and what is those critics’ obsession with realism?? If we wanted realism, we'd go outside!
This game is not realistic, and that’s a good thing! Because realism for the sake of realism is the opposite of fun. And fun is the actual point of playing a game is the first place!
Neither is it GTA. Which is also a good thing, since we already have that, and it went so far into realism land, that it became a pretty crappy game. (GTA 1 was way more fun in terms of rampage you could do. Like sliding over people, leaving a blood smear. Or actually managing to free the city of all cops.)

This is a racing action game. A rampage. And it’s really really fun! Especially the Burnout-style car fights. The walking around is only side decoration. Only those who (wrongly) think it’s GTA focus on that. I never leave the car(s), except when I absolutely have to. And that’s how it's meant to be played. If you want GTA, then by all means get GTA.

I also recommend that Riddick game. Which outdid Doom 3, Half-Life and FarCry when it came out, but somehow I guess Tigon was the only one to not buy the “reviewers”. (The new release has fully updated graphics.)

— 94.220.246.39 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a wheelman?

This article needs a hat with some disambiguation, or it needs to be converted to 2 pages: Wheelman (definition) and Wheelman (video game), or whatever the Wikipedia terminology is. I would do it myself, but it has become nigh impossible to figure out the right way to do things here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.138.113 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is only needed if there are multiple (usually three or more) articles which start with the same word or word-stem, but there are no other articles starting "Wheelman" so there's no need for one. As for the definition Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so definition pages do not belong here: for that there's Wiktionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wheelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221064555/http://www.midway.com:80/us/pr/mpr_5593.html to http://www.midway.com/us/pr/mpr_5593.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 16:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)