Jump to content

Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Real Players, kit?

[edit]

can someone check and see if there are gonna be real players for every team ( i support small teams(canada,ethiopia)). kits too. 10soccerkid10 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EA have said about the teams: "All are fully licensed, which means we are allowed to use the real player names & crests". Miremare 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:COPYVIO?

[edit]

I put the attention tag as this article is predominantly a copy-and-paste of one source, but I'm not sure if it can be considered a copyright violation if it can be distilled into actual prose. Schmloof (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it copied, but a laundry list as well. It doesn't seem necessary to list all the "improvements", so the list should just be deleted until prose sections can be written.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<obvious statement>Someone with knowledge of the game should rewrite it out of the list and then source it.</obvious statement>--Doink9731 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the copyviolating revisions and back to a stub. Have at it. –xenotalk 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is it me or is this written a little bit too much like an advert?? Kind of like what will be on the back of the game box 94.9.222.188 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High priorty

[edit]

I would say this game is a high priorty article, as it is a very common commercial product. A100128-000237 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language box

[edit]

There's also a Dutch page, but it's missing out in the box on the left Squatj (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions?

[edit]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to list the five teams that participated in the qualifying tournament but are not included in the game? 94.2.188.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Editing

[edit]

I recently made some valid changs. can anyone edit them. all the sources i listed are valed and creditable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.130.238 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

[edit]

Can somebody provide verification for the songs listed?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docklanders (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else: You'll find an updated list here: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/world-cup-ng-discussion/935063-soundtrack-list.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.226.212 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of national football teams

[edit]

I have seen a small edit conflict going on in regards to the full list. There is a reference already discussing what teams are going to be in the game, so please quit deleting it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "teams and venues" section already makes it perfectly clear which teams are in the game, making a full list completely unnecessary. Lists like that are against the video game article guidelines anyway. Miremare 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miramare about the team lists, the prose makes it clear who is in the game. However, there needs to be additional information about the venues. But the lists are too exhaustive and against guidelineDylant2011 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that even if a supposed list of national teams goes against policy, the jump in the number of teams now available between the 2006 FIFA World Cup video game and now the 2010 FIFA World Cup game is such that a point should be made. Teams from Europe and South America have essentially remained the same however the teams in Africa, Asia, North-Central America, and Oceania have at least doubled which why I find it necessary to show every single team. Besides that there's being consistent with past World Cup games. Please take it into consideration. Spartan008 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the point is made in the "teams and venues" section, which describes which teams are included, provides links to the articles on the qualifying stages, and includes a map to illustrate the included teams. Miremare 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point is most certainly not made by the "teams and venues" section because it poorly illustrates just how much greater this 2010 edition is when compared to the last one in 2006. The last edition had 127 national teams while this new one will feature 199. That's an increase of 72 teams which I must say is a huge addition, especially when you consider the fact that FIFA 10 has only 47 national teams. I might be able to understand your reasoning if you had a half-decent map showing teams in the game instead of just taking a map from 2010 World Cup qualifying and putting it in this article. I get that WP shouldn't be a list but people shouldn't have to research which teams are in the game. Also, we should remain consistent with past editions otherwise someone needs to bring the other articles in line with this one.Spartan008 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to mention that the number of teams has increased over the last game then that's easily accomplished by noting this in the prose. I'm not sure why you don't consider the map "half-decent", as it does highlight every team that took part in qualification, and therefore every team in the game. Are there are any alterations you feel would improve it? Regarding your last point, it is indeed those other articles that should be "brought in line" with this one, rather than vice-versa. Miremare 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've taken you thoughts into consideration and made some adjustments. With regards to the map, I think it would better serve the article if it highlighted the 199 countries in the game with one color then the nine countries that aren't with another color. Currently the map shows countries who qualified for the finals, those who did not, and those who did not enter qualifying. I'm not sure if someone could provide such a map but it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Spartan008 (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new map with the specified changes, included teams in green, non-included teams in grey. Miremare 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks miramare for the map upload.... the other 1 looked kinda corrupted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10soccerkid10 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

There's some disagreement on the inclusion of flags in the soundtrack section so I thought I'd explain my revert. As flags are not meant to be used in a purely decorative manner, I don't believe they should be used in this list. WP:MOSFLAG states that nationality should not be emphasised without good reason, and that flags should not be used without being accompanied by the corresponding country name anyway. We know that the soundtrack is multi-national as it says so just above the list, but which bands come from which countries has little relevance to the game. I'm not sure we even need the country names, but if we must, do they are a much less obtrusive alternative to flags. Miremare 23:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The flags should be included, as a huge part of the World Cup is the coming together of a multitude of nations. Having the flags would be more aesthetically pleasing as well as advance the Nationalism the World Cup attempts to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.119.0 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not supposed to have anything to do with nationalism. We are supposed to be neutral. And if your next best argument is that the flags "look nice", then I'm afraid that's not a very convincing argument either. WP:MOSICON states that flagicons should not be used merely for decoration. – PeeJay 00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums

[edit]

There seems to be a disagreement between myself and Paul Smeltzerinho over the listing of all stadiums in the game. Personally I think the same rules apply as they did in the discussion over the listing of all national teams with reference to the video game article guidelines. It would be much appreciated if someone one could step in and let this guy know the protocol, especially since he has just joined the group of editors who follow this article. Spartan008 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I know the protocol. The fact I've just joined this article as an editor is irrelevant. It's already been commented on that the page looks more like an advertisement rather than informative article with encyclopedic content. This must change.

The only reason a list of teams is unnecessary is because 1. At 199, it would be far too vast and would fill up the entire page looking unsightly, and 2. It's far easier (as evidenced) to note the teams who are not included.

On the other hand the list of new stadiums is relevant, concise and informative, and I'm sorry but if we're going to have a list of audio tracks, artists and what nation they reside from (!) (that is double in size!) then a list of actual gameplay content has to be then deemed a necessity.Paul Smeltzerinho (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, Paul, but isn't it easier to link to 2010 FIFA World Cup#Venues than to list the ten venues in this article? That way, the information is still accessible on Wikipedia without taking up unnecessary space in this article. – PeeJay 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it was commented somewhere above that the article was like an advertisement on 14 February, when it looked like this, and it has changed completely since then. If you think the article has a promotional tone then please do edit it, though I don't quite see what you mean. If anything, exhaustive lists of gameplay items make articles look more promotional and are not what I would describe as "encyclopedic content", in that they're not something I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. I've previously argued against soundtrack listings for games like FIFA (where the music doesn't impact the gameplay due to only being played in the menus) but the consensus is usually that they're ok, especially if they've had a release outside of the game itself, which games in the FIFA series usually have. Either way, the video game article guidelines are the relevant ones in this case and they include "lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" under "inappropriate content". Miremare 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough if the entire article followed this trend, but just the fact that the audio tracks take up more of the screen than anything else, it seems foolish and a tad odd that important game content is not residing alongside it. I formatted the stadium listings in a way that it would only take up a few lines as not to clutter the page, but seeing today's example of it in block list, it looked out of place. As does the audio tracks. If a sentence and a link is good enough for the venues, then why isn't it good enough for the very disposible audio listings? All this editing just appears to me like some people think their opinion is above anyone else's. One rule here and another rule there. Paul Smeltzerinho (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, if I had it my way I would list the stadiums. I am a huge fan of the FIFA series and I think that information is relevant just as the audio trax are. People actually make a big deal about the music that's in this game. I see the logic behind not listing all 199 national teams but to be honest I don't know how listing the 48 venues in the games takes away from Wikipedia's integrity. I suppose it's just a matter of following the rules, whoever wrote them.Spartan008 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Well I'd just like to see some consistency in the page. I'm all for following consensus and guidelines aslong as it goes across the board. I know there's an interest in the audio tracks, but I argue that stadia is a huge interest with the consumers of the FIFA series, proven by the dozens of petitions to get certain ones in every year on the forum. But alas, I guess a link is good enough. Paul Smeltzerinho (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it boils down to the fact that for an encyclopedia article it's better to write about things than to simply list them, and also to weight of coverage; if something is important enough to devote space in the article to, there should be something (citable) to actually say about it. Miremare 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but then the audio tracks come back into the mould. My encyclopedia on countries has a picture of every flag for them, should I write to them and inform them that this is too much information for an encyclopedia and that they should just put "every country has a flag...here's a picture of Norway's for example." ;|

btw "as well as stadiums from each qualifying region and a range of "generic" stadiums." There are only licensed qualifying stadia representing Europe and South America, this needs correcting, or at least worded better. Paul Smeltzerinho (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just list the stadia that are different from the previous version of FIFA? I also think that this is an idea that could/should be implemented for all other FIFA game articles. – PeeJay 23:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary?

[edit]

Anyone know who provides the commentary? ToxicWasteGrounds 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the English version, it's Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend, although I've heard that John Motson sometimes makes the odd appearance. – PeeJay 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enrique "Perro" Bermudez and Ricardo Pelaez do the commentary in Mexican Spanish. 64.92.53.159 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non free video game image now being uploaded.

[edit]

Screenshot now being uploaded in order to improve this article.I"m assisting this article as to improve it.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 00:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED: Image now placed in the article.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 00:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys the in game screenshot is not from FIFA World Cup game, is from a patch for PES 2010. I am not autoconfirmed yet so I cant change it. UPDATE; There wasn't need to delete it I changed it. talk

Edit Request on 24 of December 2013

[edit]

The colored bar below the name represents the composure of the player; the green and yellow is the penalty taker has a high chance of scoring, while the red stands for the kicker is not composed. 64.92.53.159 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

[edit]

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template. Leaving this as C-class; some tips for improvement are below:

  • The Gameplay section talks about picking teams and whatnot, but doesn't actually have any information on how you play the game itself.
  • The soundtrack section is pretty much unnecessary, and a list of songs is way too much information, especially if they weren't released as an album
  • There's no development section
  • That Reception table is massive- there shouldn't be more than 7-8 review outlets
  • There's very little reception info itself in the text
  • DLC needs a lot of copyediting, as well as citations. --PresN 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview sources

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_South_Africa_(video_game)&oldid=1243243961"