Jump to content

Talk:Burnout 3: Takedown

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

Untitled

[edit]

Minimum specs

[edit]

Minimum specs, or a minimum specs link would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.65.120 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This game is not even available for PC, and consoles don't have minimum specs. And yes, I know I'm replying to a nearly 4 year old comment. --- Hardstylehunt3r (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USA Location

[edit]

Is it right to say that the track Mountain Parkway is equivalent to United States in real life? Isn't it a bit redundant, since it's already set in US anyways? -- Steven 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) yea. same for Alpine Expressway being Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by The_Next_Biggish_Thing (talkcontribs) [reply]

Crash $

[edit]

Is that section vandalism? It is taken straight out of the game. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge the article Burnout 3 soundtrack due to lack of notability with sources, the soundtrack also didn't have it own soundtrack release and could be easy merged in the main article with a collapsible table like Burnout Paradise. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Collapse - X201 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly shouldn't have a separate article. And per #14 of WP:VGSCOPE I don't think we should include a tracklisting on this article either as it isn't a subject of independent commentary. It should just be summarised under development that the game used licensed music. So I would say AfD or straight redirect. I have the same opinion about List of songs from Burnout Revenge and Burnout Legends as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Burnout 3: Takedown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently reviewing --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Result: Based on my review of the article, I believe it to be of appropriate quality for Good Article status. The article is well written (criteria #1), verifiable with no original research (criteria #2), broad in coverage (criteria #3), neutral in tone (criteria #4), stable, and is illustrated by images where possible (criteria #5 and #6). The only concern that I do have the the cite kill present within it. With that said, I do not consider that a 'deal breaker' that would block a GA and will look into addressing it myself in a timely manner. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the citekill issue mentioned before by bundling the citations (WP:CITEBUNDLE). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

are the features from the demo release, such as car parts actually coming off during road rage, or the unsettling unused impact time sounds notable to be in the article? i feel they are but i need to hear a statement from someone else first 104.235.75.1 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]