Talk:First-person shooter/Archive 2

Revial: How I hate Wikipedia

This article sucks because it was written by prepubcent and postpubecent and even pubecesent teens and or adults and or children. This may or may not be obvious because there are superiority refrences that others might see (but that does not indicate if there presence is actually there).

What I'm after this time is the DEFINITION of FPS... I don't like the incorporation of "tactical shooters" in the FPS Genrea... or RPG Shooters... or anything that deviates from the true style of an FPS.

It appears FPS' are defined as:

1) "All FPSs feature the core gameplay elements of movement and shooting" 2) "where the main character's gun and part of his/her hand is shown" 3) "Many third-person shooters... are commonly treated as first-person shooters" Well, 2 conflicts with 3, unless you consider rotating the camera.

4) "The term first-person shooter has also been applied to games that take advantage of the first-person view and allow for free movement by the player" Essentally, NOT third person shooter. (also conflicts with 3)

"but are not heavily dependent on the use fired weapons" "but instead focus on melee attacks" "or even a different form of gameplay altogether" Conflicts with... everything... basically says that an FPS is almost any game.

Thus, I conclude 1) Oblivion is a FPS because you can hurtle fireballs at enemys from the First Person Perspective AND see your hand while doing so. 2) BOXING games are FPS' because "melee attacks" are ALSO apart of the FPS Genrea... and, well, you can see your fist can't you?. 3) Duke Nukem 1 to be an FPS instead of a Sidescroller because you can see the hand on the gun, you're not on a track, and First Person Perspective doesn't really matter. 4) Or how about Hellgate: London? I mean you CAN go into FPP and shoot stuff and dodge just like in a REAL FPS. 5) Or portal?

NONE of these are FPS', if you think any of them are... you're wrong :P But all of these can easily fall into the catagory of an FPS as defined by you all.

I further argue that "Tactical Shooters" or "Stealth Shooters" are NOT FPS' because the coregameplay is NOT about running around and shooting everyone, but rather manipulating the environment and or "tactical units" to kill everyone. The biggest difference, as I see it, is your health and or speed. A Typical FPS is based on "assault" tactics, that being you charge into open fire and kill your enemy. Since this article claimed (at sometime or another) that all FPS' were Doom clones, one could conclude that something that is unlike Doom is not an FPS. Doom, as I recall, was very assault based... you didn't NEED to lure enemies if you could quickly shoot and kill them. In most tactical games, staying out in the open leads to a quick and painful death. And more often than not, health packs are a luxury... if you get any at all. Let alone the RPG Shooters that have taken a rising once again, these clearly don't follow the FPS because of the RPG elements... the problem is people seem reluctant to separate it into a better defined and new catagory. Then don't, leave them as a "shooter", but there really does need to be distinctions between the subgeneras.

(And, While I'm at it, I'm gonna do a rehap of what happened before... sortof) Additionally, I thought it was agreed upon "First Come First Serve". Things like "The games Rise of the Triad and Star Wars: Dark Forces introduced some technologies that were more advanced than those used in Doom, for example real time lighting and level-over-level areas." Really don't belong... and has NOTHING to do with FPS'... (with a really nasty smirk) it has to do with rendering technology that does not affect gameplay what so ever. Let alone the level-over-level areas "seems" to have been credited to marathon.

But furthering that, any improvements in "visual quality" or "eyecatchyness" does not belong in this article... how does "visual quality" affect gameplay (it's rhetorical, if you think it does, you're the reason games cost $50 to buy) when the engine is mearly a way to DELIVER the game... this article should be about the game MECHANICS. And NOTHING about the games "Half-Life also resulted in many successful mods, such as the hit Counter-Strike. Counter-Strike is still the most popular multi-player FPS in the world." How does the success of mods affect the game dynamics? (Rhetorical again), and counter-strike is not the most popular... it's the most hated. And TECHNICALLY CS:S is not CS... just like HL2 is not HL.

Besides there is ALREADY a section on mods... and a history should NOT start ranting about your favorite mod or game.

Although this is interesting. "However, because the player character is in actuality a space vehicle, Descent is not always considered an FPS in the traditional sense and may be classified as a space-sim hybrid."

Question, why is a game that is ammitingly not an FPS in an FPS Article? EXPECALLY if Flight Simulators are not considered FPS'?

I see some valid arguments in there, interspersed with some rather unprovoked and unwarranted ad hominem, but it is difficult to respond or take seriously a rant like the one you have constructed. Please reorganize your points, leave the name-calling for a place where it matters, and present each topic in its own section. Also, new discussions should go at the bottom of the page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Prey

just wanted to mention, that Prey isn't the first game with gravity flipping and wall walking. the first game i know that has these features is the Serious Sam Demo.

Prey really needs to come off the significant games list, there isn't anything really new there, it's a nice nostalgia trip, but, the actual game material itself is dated. The only thing unique to it is the technical functioning of the portals in engine, and that's honestly, pretty obscure stuff.

The post death coming back to life, I remember seeing in a game Tomb of the Taskmaker, back in the 90s, (though admittedly not a FPS), the general concept behind having to view the world in multiple modes popped up in Undying. I never finished that game so I'm not sure if it changed environments, but, if you didn't use the scrye you could be attacked by enemies that only existed psychically IIRC. Anyway, my two cents. (StarkeRealm 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

there's prey, and then there's prey. when the original was under development it broke any number of boundaries, portals being only the neatest - Advocate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.243.107 (talk) 05:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Any issues with suggesting a merge of Doom clone into this?

I'm trying to clean up another genre article ("GTA clone" into "Sandbox"), and someone pointed out that Doom clone existed and was separate from this article. I see no point in why Doom clone needs its own article - the info in this article fully covers it beyond the nice graph that article has (but easily added). I see that the same merge was suggested last year, mainly because this article is about the history of the game and "Doom clone" is about the genre, but if you look at platform game , another genre article but with a GA status, they also have sub-genres of the platformer, which definitely can be said about "Doom clone" being a sub-genre of an FPS, and then which you can then be free to define othes such as tactical, stealth, RPG-based, and so forth.

Certainly the size of this article is pretty long, but I think that if you consider having a section on sub-genres, you don't need to list every single FPS game that came out, only notable examples within the history and the genres. --Masem 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

doom clone is only an earlier name for first person shooter. they're exactly the same thing -Advocate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.243.107 (talk) 05:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park: Trespasser

I know this game was a flop, but it should probably be mentioned in the "selected important games in FPS development" section for having the earliest incorperation of shaders and ragdoll physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.8.10.196 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan site?

I don't see anything in this page that makes it seem like a fan site to me--does someone want to explain this designation? PotatoKnight 07:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Made use of a new graphics engine featuring hitherto unseen real-time lighting and shadows, used exclusively to create an atmosphere of fear and danger for the player. Essentially a "re-telling" of the original Doom story, and in many ways a throwback to some of the techniques used in earlier FPSes, the main selling point for the game was actually its graphics engine. Using cutting-edge technologies, id Software created one of the most powerful graphics engines to date. As with previous Doom and Quake engines, it is being widely licensed to developers.

Bolded areas are blatantly POV, and that's from one paragraph about one game still remaining in the article. The article is full of such statements about many games that should be factualized and sourced, or removed. Also, this article is about the genre, not about people's personal favorite games. Even if all of the above statements about Doom 3 were indisputably true, it's still worth asking how this is relevant to the genre, which largely has not adopted Doom 3's gameplay. Which brings us to the last point, which is that most of these discussions fail to mention criticisms or failures of games in FPS, making it one-sided and therefore fancruft. As an example, the game Daikatana is probably more notable (for its abject failure) than Doom 3 (for its moderate success), but Daikatana isn't discussed anywhere in the article. Ham Pastrami 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ham, your criteria for removing all "personal" sites from the links section doesn't seem to involve any criteria such as "useful" or "valid" or "non-biased" at all. I'm not sure how "personal" could even BE a criteria for whether a site should be listed here by ANY definition. My site, for example, has far more FPS content than BluesNews (a link I added) and has nothing in any way biased except for reviews, which can't ever be said to NOT be biased. Is it because I don't have anything commercial on it either? Oh wait, that makes me LESS biased, ie More Acceptable/relevant, etc. etc. Is the point to make this article fit some criteria of neutrality or to make it useful for the people (mostly fans) who show up here? In either case, removing links isn't going to accomplish it. And again, my site is one of, if not THE best resource for FPS info on the web. That's not biased. I've got the most complete list of the genre ever compiled which in and of itself is a prime resource without regard to the screenshots, videos, demos, soundtracks, full downloads, and etc. that can be found there, all free, all non-biased, entirely by a fan of the genre and precisely the sort of resource which SHOULD be linked here.

If you insist on removing some links, how about a REASON for doing so?! Every site with so much as a review can said to be non-neutral. That's not enough to remove them here. Even BluesNews, which more or less only reports what it sees, still can be said to have a definate Pro-FPS bias.

68.54.56.198 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Advocate ()

Wikipedia's policy on external links strongly discourages linking to personal web sites or blogs, regardless if they're non-biased or otherwise. --Masem 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaning what exactly? That it's not owned by a corporation? This is not criteria which has any meaning to it's usefulness to Wikipedia. I'd be happy to get corporate sponsorship if that will make you feel that I've got a more proper resource. Consider the site on it's merits, not the rules (excuse me, guidelines). I do not undertake to defend the inclusion of other sites only because mine is the perfect example of what SHOULD be included.

68.54.56.198 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Advocate ()

There's probably several interpretations, some as strict as saying that it has to be run by a corporate entity, but I don't think it is that strong. I generally consider is the site the work of one person, is the site well-reknown in the area it represents, and how much of the content of the site is more than what other, more reliable/verifiable game sites and Wikipedia can provide due to some limitations (however, the site cannot have copyvio materials as this would potentially harm WP). Most fan sites fail parts of these. Looking through the site in question, I say it fails the third of these, in that its just a list of FPS games with some additional information which in most case is what each game has on it's WP page; the only thing is how that information is presented.

Also, you are running into a conflict of interest by trying to push your own site even if your site isn't commercial. --Masem 17:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a link-farm; external links need to be relevant to the content of the article and provide more information if a reader needs to know more, not just added because it's related to the material in the article. --Masem 18:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you've shown now that not only can you not reasonably state WHY you're making this choice, but you don't even know WHAT you're doing. BluesNews is owned and operated by Stephen "Blue" Heaslip. It's every bit as much and not as much a personal site as mine. Yet you see fit to include it automatically and disinclude mine automatically. As for the content of the site, where wiki pages exist, they can be used instead, where they do not, which is 99% of the titles on that list, another resource is needed. How exactly is there a conflict of interest if the site is not commercial? Is a commercial site more concerned somehow about pushing correct information to the public? Not so. Not so. They follow their commercial interests. Providing additional information is Exactly what my site does, as well as all the rest which were arbitrarily selected for removal. At least in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent">Council of Trent</a> they could enumerate WHY they made the choices they did, even if they were bad ones. This type of overbearing edit requires community discussion and approval, not "it feels to me like it doesn't belong".

My concern is now, as it has always been, to provide the best information possible about First Person Shooters to anyone interested. What's your motivation?

And btw, there is no more "reliable" or "verifiable" site than mine either. You Fail.

68.54.56.198 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Advocate (

Blue's News may have been a personal site, but has evolved and become to be recognized as a reliable gaming news source, and is run by many people, more than just one person.

Spot checking entries on your site does shown content outside of Wikipedia. but nothing outside of other more-notable video game resources don't offer already.

Conflict of interests can occur with ANY site, even if not commercial. Basically, most of the links your adding are spam even if they do deal with the topic, but particularly promoting your own site is frowned upon.

Generally, you don't add a bunch of links and ask people to prune out the ones that don't fit in. The Wikipedia way is to suggest a given link for inclusion and then to discuss it to see if people agree it fits.

Again, we are assuming good faith in your edits, but the approach that you are taking is the problem; right now, you're close to violating the 3-revert rule by insisting on adding the links. If you want to discuss why edit should be included here, and open it for discussion we can go from there. --Masem 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "recognized as a reliable gaming news source" is entirely an opinion, which is what these edits were started to weed through. But that happens to be exactly why I added it. And you have no idea how many people "run" my site, so you shouldn't be making decisions based on that ignorance. "more notable"? Many of the games on my site can only be found there or on Tremendously obscure pages deep in the bowels of the internet. On that point you're simply dead wrong. I didn't add a bunch of links, I sorted the ones that already existed here into appropriate categories. And now I'm Re-adding them, as I will continue to do forever, because no one has shown any reasonable justification for their removal in the first place, PARTICULARLY mine. Those links were added by a variety of people in a time when apparently you weren't here paying attention, so for you to assume the role of moderator over them is disingenuous at best. The onus is not on me to explain putting things back the way they were, that's what the community should be speaking on before your actions are let to exist. (Advocate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, much of this is based on opinion, which in total forms a WP:CONSENSUS, which is how WP works. Blue's News was chosen to be left here because the no one disagrees enough to remove it. That may seem arbitrary to you, but that's what consensus is. On the other hand, you seem to be the only person who wants your link on this page, while at least three people disagree enough to remove it. It does not have the approval of consensus to remain here. Your approach of unilaterally reverting edits in order to keep your own personal page linked from this article is against a number of WP policies. To answer your question, that is my reason for removing the sites that I did -- they are against policy (and I agree with the policy very much), which I stated in my edit summary. Ham Pastrami 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fansite part 2

I'm a bit worried that no one has fixed the editorializing in this article yet. It has lots of great info, but there is a lot of stuff that either has to be sourced, has to be clarified, or has to be deleted. For example, there's one line that really needs to be clarified or cut.

"Counter-Strike continues, nine years later, to be the most popular multi-player FPS in the world."

What the heck does this mean, and how is "most popular" defined? Most players? Most sales? What? "Popular" needs to be either deleted, or this has to be sourced with real numbers like players per day or something. This is just one example, but I agree that this article reads like a fan site. It doesn't need a complete re-write, just some editing. --Bakarocket 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

", and is one of the most well-known genres of video games." This is removed why? FPS IS one of the most well-known genres of video game. That sentence was specifically phrased as "one of" in order to remove any possibility of being biased or incorrect. Must every statement made on a wikipedia page be linked to the evidence of it's truth or is it acceptable to say, for example, that Ford is a big car company? Should we leave it to the reader to do their own research to find that FPS is a larger genre than Yeti-games? I think Not.

This is getting really absurd. It's not necessary, helpful, or desirable that anything which MIGHT be biased be removed, only things which ARE biased.

68.54.56.198 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Advocate ()

See WP:PEACOCK. Verifiability isn't really the issue here (I'd have to delete half the article if I was really a stickler about sourcing everything). The issue here is making useful statements vs broad and meaningless claims. You seem not to understand that Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines, so my suggestion is that you start at WP:POLICY, WP:PILLARS, and WP:NOT to get a better idea of what this site is actually about. It is not a place for you to advocate things. It is not a place to build a fan community. If you dislike the policies, then maybe WP isn't the right place for you to contribute. BTW I've removed your links from this talk page as well, according to WP:LINKSPAM. Ham Pastrami 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

what i think

I don't think you are faire. I looked at all those link and yes two that you were left are good but the one hes arguing about is good just as much. i do'nt care what you say but the link of him has much information and is good. did you even looked at his pages?

Ever heard of "Grammar"?-Halen of HPNC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.169.37 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The list of disputed links

As to help resolve the issue of what links should be on the page, here are the links in question (numbered), people should put their own commentary under each to decide. I suggest that to resolve this those that want to chime in with keep or delete for each entry. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. FirstPersonShooters dot net - A complete list of the genre]

Delete- I've spot-checked links in this, and best I can tell from the pages, it's primarily just a list of games, platforms, some screenshots here and there, and pointers to other places. As an external link it has no unique content save for possibly having a complete list of FPS games, which could be done via a WP category. We only need one list --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep- The main point of this site is The List (the front page) which in and of itself is a proper link for this article without regard to the type or amount of content linked from it (which is also significant). At one point there was a Wikipedia list of first person shooters that went beyond the titles with actual wiki articles associated, and eventually this site's list was added for completeness. it was later removed for being too unwieldy? and a link to this site was put in it's place. That link eventually migrated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

(I'm looking at the comments at the Moby link below). The content of the site has to be meaningful. Any site can provide just a list of FPS games. What is important is what else is provided by those links. The pages at the above site have inconsistent information, and while Moby's list may not be as accurate as this link, it's pretty consistent what you will find. In fact, despite the fact it's not listed in one place, Moby's information includes everything listed at the above link, thus superceding its need.

But now you've introduced one more issue. If firstpersonshooters.net offers soundtracks and abandonware, this is now questionable copyright territory and violates WP:EL#Restrictions on linking which pretty much closes this discussion down. That's a WP absolute, not something to be overridden by consensus. Already, there's issues with conflict of interest, this compounds the issue.

This site has a list of the genre which is overwhelmingly more complete than any other ever compiled. And that's just it, Moby doesn't provide ANYTHING for a great number of FPS titles. And no, the site doesn't have to provide any particular amount of information, what it has to do is provide a significant extension of the information found here. It just so happens, however, that this link does both. Your constant attempts at saying MobyGames is a "better" site somehow never ring true. It's consistency is as much in not having a particular title at all as it is in having good information for the titles it does have. "Moby's information includes everything listed at the above link"... for about half the number of games, thus meaning This site supercedes!

Part 2. The soundtracks have no question of legality whatsoever.

The abandonwarez are free of questionability to the extent which it is possible to determine by using Google to search for a place to purchase. You're awfully happy to find a "reason" to trump with rules while ignoring the intent of Wiki, or this page, but it doesn't hold true that "questionable copyright territory" is a valid argument since attempt was made to find any method of legally purchasing said titles and that attempt failed. It is also that sites policy to immediately remove any questionable content when any notice of copyright is given or can be found. In fact the older titles which are the majority of what is available for download are often copyrighted to entities which are no longer in existence and which due to it being impossible for even an army of lawyers to iron out, would therefore be lost forever. It doesn't go as far as Underdog, every attempt is made to keep the site perfectly legal while saving any and all information about FPS games for posterity. It's providing of non-purchasable titles is a boon to the community and should be applauded and rewarded. Even if, for the sake of argument, the method in which it does so did not meet wikipedia criteria standards, that would only be a heads up that those standards need to be changed.

You can't just say that it meets or doesn't meet certain criteria and therefore the argument is over any more than you can just cut out a long-standing portion of this article on your own determination. You're consistently not following through with your arguments to the point where they're based on fact. An assumption of your correctness is not valid. An assumption of somethings legality is not valid. Each of these items needs to be discussed with wikipedia moderators and the community at large before any decision is reached. THAT is the strength of wikipedia. The community has already ruled on the inclusion of this site. Now if you're determined to raise another issue to try to knock it off, so be it, but I imagine they'll say essentially what they said before: "it's a good, useful site. leave it" and THAT is the POINT of wikipedia.

"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."

FirstPersonShooters.net does not violate the copyright of others (as best it can be determined by the site owner. anyone else is welcome to try but if they DO find infringing material it will be removed, the same as for any other of the web's vast number of completely respected and respectable sites, thereby maintaining the truth of this sentence). You said that pretty much closed this discussion down. I see the truth of that. There is nothing objectionable about this site as per the criteria on the page you linked, therefore there is nothing to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

Just to make sure, I'm checking with people that made these guidelines to check on the validity of the site. Abandonware from a large corporation like Wikipedia has to be treated as copyright violation even if you've taken all the steps to allow people to get you to remove it and you tried to chase down all ownerships. I do note that Home of the Underdogs seems to allow its link so I will give the benefit of the doubt and check on this. I will also assume that soundtracks are not taken from games directly (rips, emulated or otherwise). Remember, consensus can change; it looks like those links were added earlier this year at the latest, possibly earlier, but things change over time.

I understand what you're saying wrt to the larger list of games on FPSs.net and the generally more detailed info at Moby. But taking a look between comparable pages of both , I'm seeing a larger issue in that neither site is really offering anything unique in terms of their own content. Sure, FPSs.net might be a bigger list, but none of the content is original; it's game media or links to other sites. Moby may have some uniqueness but it itself is generally not as well rounded as other games. It would be one thing if either of these were close to the usefulness of IMDB for movie information, but neither does.

Maybe the question we should ask is that do we really need an EL to link to a site that provides a list and more links to other sites for additional information? What does this serve us better than using Category:First-person shooters, with the obvious caveat that this category holds maybe 25% of what FPSs.net does; alternatively why can't one create a table (albiet a long one) that has the games, publishers, developers, platforms, year of release, links to rating aggregation sites like MetaCritic and GameRankings, and official website links (if the exist)? To me, WP is the ideal neutral place for such information instead of fighting over which of two questionable links to include. --Masem 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The soundtracks are all available on the respective companies sites & etc. Which brings me to the uniqueness criteria. I'm not sure why uniqueness is a criteria for you. To use images for example, there is rarely if ever a site which doesn't have exactly the same screenshots as every other one and if it did, that doesn't make those screenshots any more useful than any other. The same for reviews. Game title, developer, publisher, all these things, the majority of the information available about a game would NOT be unique. The criteria should be what site does the best job filling in from where WP leaves off. In the case of general videogames, a site like Moby would fit the bill. In the case of a specific genre, something else is needed. The FPS.net list was added here previously but was seen to be too much, it sort of took over from the rest of that video-game list, which apparently was established to track those games which have WP articles rather than just track the games. I digress. This article is an overview. Beyond the overview is what needs to be linked. Whatever fits the genre as a whole should be here, anything more specific should be linked. The clear intermediate step between general information about First Person Shooters (this article) and the specific information about specific games (various pages scattered about the net) is.... well, it's clear to me. IGN & etc are also viable contenders but they fail the same standard of completeness and are inextricably linked to their respective commercial interests instead of the wants/needs of the fans (those who would click further than this article)

BluesNews is linked because when people are finished reading here they may be interested in gaining further information. That further information comes in two varieties. Ongoing updates (blue) and archived data (other). Noone can touch blue on the first, and for ease of use, completeness, and general warm fuzzies (no ads, no bias, concentration on what's hardest to find elsewhere), firstpersonshooters.net. Which brings up another point. Any given page other than the more recent titles on FPS.net could possibly be trumped by a google search, but for the obscure titles, noone else has gone to the trouble of gathering data for them on more than a few titles per site. in other words it's the best amount of data about obscure FPS anywhere. Also up-to-date information about the most recent titles means it hits three important milestones. a) The list is the most complete anywhere. b) Nowhere else can you find as much information about as many obscure titles c) It compares favorably with other sites on tracking the latest updates available for unreleased and newly released games. Add them together and it's a resource of significant improvement over anything that's been done before. And that's it's purpose. Even as we speak (type?) more information is being gathered and added in order to eventually make it the undeniably most complete resource for the genre without debate. And I believe it's got a great start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

We do need more people in on this discussion, unfortunately the site owner is still under a ban for editing behavior for at least 48hr from when I write this, so definitely we'll want to wait to let him (assuming this, pardon me if incorrect) have his fair say when the ban's over.

Let me just iterate the three things that make me tentatively favor deletion:

1. The abandonware issue. This should be an absolute yes/no issue once, checking with WPdians that are more knowledgeable about WP's stance on copyright issues respond. This is not my decision, this is from "up high". So this is really not up for discussion, at least in this article's context, though I've posed the question as an in-general issue of abandonware sites (including Underdogs) for this.
2. The Conflict of interest issue. I know the site is not commercial and all that, but the actions of its owner (the anon IP presently banned) bring up these issues, including moving the link to the forefront of the ELs back a ways, and the insistence of keeping it in the page (as per above). COI is not cut-and-dried like potential copyvios, and I understand the want and desire to have a good resource kept where it should, so I'm willing to overlook this to some extent and assume good faith; that said, further actions to force this link (should it be decided by consensus to be removed) back onto the page will likely not be tolerated.
3. The content issue, which is the primary one. External links are not something to be added lightly, they really need to show what value they add. I can't say there's no content for FPSs.net, nor is the list probably not comprehensive. It's just to me that the specific content for each game is ... lacking what I would want to see, considering that non-gamers will likely follow that link to find out more information. You mentioned before lists of credits which likely won't interest the average gamer but may be of more interest to non-gamers, that's the type of information that I'm feeling is lacking. But I understand what you are saying about the completeness of the list aspect. This is where we need others' opinions: is this site filling a need that is missing in the article to iterate all FPS games made? I will say that if the consensus agrees that the site should NOT be an external link solely based on what content it provides (and not due to either of the other two issues), we can still include a reference to this page, noting that more than 1x00 unique FPS titles exist (removing duplicates by platform). (Note that I didn't delete this originally, this was done here by User:Ham Pastrami, though I would have agreed prior to this discussion that these deletes were appropriate.)

So two of the issues I have are more restricted to WP policies, the third one is the one I can be swayed on, if others have compelling reasons to keep it in the article, then I'll certainly drop my resistance to it (even now, I'd consider this on a tentative delete/keep vote range, ignoring the other two issues). But we do need more input, and a chance for the site owner to speak his mind too. --Masem 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(is that enough : yet?) I just wanted to say, since i'm not feeling in a particularly discussive mood, "don't taze me bro". that's all for today.

66.197.176.165 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. MobyGames' collection of FPS documentation and reviews

Tentative Keep - Generally its doing the same job as the first link, but Moby Games is a well-respected link for general game summaries for video games. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative Keep - Let's take a look at this site. First of all, it's the wrong link, it should be http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/action/1st-person-perspective/shooter/ which adds "shooter" to the "1st person" part. This gives a total of 1301 titles. BUT, if you take a look at what that includes, there are "packs", which doesn't count as a game, vehicle-based shooters (which undoubtedly accounts for a large number of the results but is generally considered a separate genre and regardless, doesn't fit what this page has described), rail shooters (some people include them but most fans IMO don't like to. at any rate they're a small number, not worth debating), and mech titles, (a fine line between FPS and Vehicle FPS). It also includes sub-categories for sports, simulation, strategy and adventure. Since this article isn't about Vehicle based FPS, and given the other points, that narrows the list of relevant titles considerably.

Now let's take a look at what you get for any particular game. The most popular FPS at the moment is Bioshock (this is not a matter of opinion, Halo 3 isn't out yet, neither is Team Fortress 2). Oh wait. In the narrowed list on the right-hand side of "the 250 most popular games within the currently selected categories" it does not appear. But the rail-shooter Beachhead 2002 does. Oh I see they have their finger squarely on the pulse of the community. </sarcasm> Upon further sorting, we have to drill-down to find it, there it is, on page 7 of the alphabetical listings. And it's right beside "Bioshock (Special Edition)" which means another number of titles not particularly relevant. Now here's where it gets good. There's plenty of information there. MobyGames is a good site. I don't recommend removing it. What I'm doing is offering a contrast. The link above offers much that a site such as MobyGames does not. If you want to include a site with detailed information about all kinds of games, when you finally find it, list MobyGames. If you want a site dedicated to first person shooters which very specifically keeps up with what's going on in the community NOW, and is far more complete on the general level, use firstpersonshooters.net.

Both are good resources in their own way, but only one is most relevant to this genre, to this page, and it's not MobyGames. Here's an example of why: firstpersonshooters.net/games/Bioshock/index.html There's about as much information there as on the MobyGames page, there's more links to reviews elsewhere, more disparate type of content, and most importantly what ISN'T included (yet) are things which people pretty much don't care about like the entire development credits. Having unique content isn't relevant to how useful a resource a page is, BluesNews, for example, has NO unique content. But firstpersonshooters.net does have a few exclusive interviews (ken silverman for example) screenshots, and etc. and also offers a combination of downloads not found on any other gaming site. Abandonwarez, regular full downloads, demos, soundtracks and a combination of regular release and fan based videos. No other site has them all together.

If, as stated above, only one list is needed. The list should be the one that is most relevant, most easy to understand, and most complete. As it has been mentioned elsewhere, content can be found by googling. This isn't the point. Whatever site best brings together the information is what specifically should be listed here. It so happens that the first two here make a nice play off each others' strengths and weaknesses but again, only one is All About First Person Shooters... the same as this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

1. PlanetPhillip - Commentary and Analysis of Sci-Fi Single Player First-Person Shooters

Tentative Delete - Again, almost serving the same purpose as the first two, again, I think if we're including an external directory site --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The Gamasutra Quantum Leap Awards

Tentative Delete - Content should be moved into article if at all possible.--Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative Delete - No. That would just add to the "it's biased" problem. I don't know that many people would disagree with its conclusions but most of the discussion on this article for the last maybe year or so has been about that

1. Blues News - General gaming news with plenty of FPS news

Keep - Well accepted site in the community. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Even though it's not primarily about, nor does it in any way emphasize, FPS, there is no other news site more complete for the genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

1. fpsFREE - First Person Shooter Content and News for FPS Creator users

Tentative Delete - Per WP:EL#Restrictions on linking, while the site tries to verify the copyright ownership of the material for download, it is a murky area. Better to avoid than to include. Also WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #11 due to heavy forum emphasis.--Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. FPSgameforums.com - First-Person Shooter News with active Discussion Boards

Delete - WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #11 - links to forums are discouraged.--Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. FPSUnion.com - Discuss first person shooters on this gamespot union

Delete - WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #11 - links to forums are discouraged.--Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. FPS Source.net - First Person Shooter Blog > News, Comments, Discussion

Delete - WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #12 - links to blogs are discouraged. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The Modding Theater FPS Modification Forum

Delete - This is likely better on a page about modding. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative Keep - Surely there should be at least one link to an external modding source?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

Not on this page, but certainly at Mod (computer gaming). --Masem 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

So you don't think FPS modding is significantly distinct from other kinds of game modding? I could swear that Red Orchestra and Mario Tetris are very different things. Not an argument, just an observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.176.165 (talk)

Mod (comptuer gaming) covers not only FPS but other games too. Yes, there's a difference, but again, the bulk of that mod page is mods of FPS games. It's just a matter of organizing the links to be under the most accurate target page. --Masem 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. FPSBANANA - One of the largest FPS customization websites

Delete - This is likely better on a page about modding, as well. --Masem 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I seriously am surprised by the amount of text that has been typed over this. It seemed like an entirely non-controversial edit to me. My continued basis for removal of the links are the policies WP:EXTERNAL, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:NOT. Also that I support the intent of these policies, I am not just applying them to indiscriminately follow the letter of the law. I believe that the site primarily in question is not notable enough for inclusion and is being supplied here for the primary purpose of self-promotion. IMO the fact that the site's owner is the only person adding the link back is ample cause for removal. Ham Pastrami 03:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

YOU are the only person acting for removal. A active community of tens of people decided over a year ago to accept that link. Not a single one of your reasons for removal is true or valid. Also, regardless of the rules, the reason for inclusion is that it's a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about the genre; every bit as valuable as the two which remain. Your unilateral battle will not be won. The only reason the ops are supporting you is because they a) don't care that the link was accepted by far more people because you're so damned LOUD about it they think you represent the people b) the believe you have valid reasons c) they're overbearing jerks who just do as they see fit without regard to it's usefulness or whether it fits the rules. Or any combination of the above. I'll say it again. The Community of many more people than are discussing it now, found it to be valid for over a year and it's a BETTER site now than it was then. It has MORE about first person shooters than MobyGames OR BluesNews! Hello! Think, McFly, Think! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Not a single one of your reasons for removal is true or valid." Ham Pastrami cited three Wikipedia policies. WP:EXTERNAL, which regulates the addition of external links, WP:LINKSPAM, which prevents an article from becoming a link directory, and WP:NOT, which contains a clause about Wikipedia not being a link directory. Unfortunately, your link is just a big list of all first person shooters. As there is already a (quite large) category of every first person shooter covered on Wikipedia, your link does not provide any more useful information to the reader. This allows it to be deleted under WP:EXTERNAL. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

and I can site UN law, the bible, and the tribal habits of eastern yourassians, that doesn't mean they apply. Your wreckless attempt to fulfill the rules (which you aren't doing at all) has lead you to completely ignore the entire point of this article, wikipedia, and the internet as a whole which is to provide access to information which is on-topic and useful to those searching it out. This site does those things and it just so happens does not violate even a single restriction of a single rule on wikipedia, and for that matter only one "suggestion" which should clearly not be followed since it is A Good Resource.

It is not "just a big list of all first person shooters". Again you're completely fallacious in everything you think and do. STOP! This site has every bit as much data as MobyGames has about first person shooters, and as a matter of fact MORE than BluesNews since BluesNews data is time-based. The fact that it starts with a list of titles means that it's better organized than MobyGames. Also your "quite large" list on wikipedia used to be complete, when it was a copy of firstpersonshooters.net. Now it's mostly just a list of those titles which wikipedia has an article for. This page isn't supposed to be here as a resource of wikipedia's knowledge of first person shooters. it's supposed to be here as a resource of first person shooters. information which is not available here is precisely and specifically what should be linked so that people can continue their research beyond what is available here.

"your link does not provide any more useful information to the reader" Once again, completely false. There is as much information on this site as on MobyGames and it's better organized because it doesn't include every other genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You're all invited to participate in the FPS WIki firstpersonshooters.org/wiki It will eventually incorporate everything found on Wikipedia, The Doom Wiki, The Halo Wiki, and any others I can find.

I hope you exercise as much concern and care there (with less nit-picking) as here. My sites are Both for the good of the community above all. I offer them and my thousands of hours spent working on them to you all gratis. Help & Enjoy.

Advocate@firstpersonshooters.org

RfC: Link dispute

Fixed RFCxxx template - made section header and rfc section param the same. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute over a link to www.firstpersonshooters.net and whether it violated WP:EL. 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If we must have a link to an off-site list of FPS games, http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Shooter/ would be a better choice. Mr. Anon, edit warring to keep in a link to your own site is never a good idea. See Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest - Ehheh 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

My first instinct is to say that an external link here isn't even useful. Our own Category:First-person shooters seems to be as extensive as the list on this website. In order for an external link to be appropriate, according to WP:EL, it has to add something to the article. A list which is more or less replicated by a category already here doesn't add anything. Anon, it is generally considered unwise to add links to your own site to a Wikipedia article. - Che Nuevara 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Category:First-person shooters isn't even remotely close to as complete. It's not the same ballpark, it's not the same league, hell it ain't even the same *sport*. As far as someone adding their own link, that's complete unimportant compared to whether or not it's a good resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, it's called a conflict of interest. Since it's your site you think it's important and adds something when in reality other sources or articles easily do the job without such conflict of interest. Just because you believe your site is a better source doesn't mean everyone else may feel the same way as proven here. Instead of trying to re-add this link, work with editors instead of causing conflict like you are now. Xtreme racer 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't added anything in about a year now. A much more vibrant set of people with much more discussion on a much wider variety of topics was that which determined that it was in fact a useful link and deserved to be here. That was a year ago. It's a MORE useful resource now. and for crying out loud will any of you ever please use that as your criteria rather than all these other totally irrelevant points about rules and procedure!? As pointed out, the conflict has been created by those trying to REMOVE a valid link. Not myself trying to maintain it. - Advocate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Consensus can change. What may or may not have been decided a year ago doesn't bind our hands now. - Ehheh 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Good" "Resource". nothing else matters. end of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.198 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that some pages contain only the game's title, and firstpersonshooters.net/Games/console/XB360/Bioshock/review.html at least one review] is plagarised from GameSpy? It is not a good resource if its content is already found on other sites. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

a) A great number of those titles don't exist on GameSpy at all. And content is being added daily. The ones with the most news get the most attention because that's what people are most interested in.

b) If "It is not a good resource if its content is already found on other sites" were true, wikipedia would not be a good resource. You're dead wrong on both counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.217.217 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.3.217.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

remove protection

This "edit war" is taking place because of someone trying to REMOVE a link with a longstanding community decision of being useful and acceptable. At least two people besides myself have re-added it recently and their decision was taken as invalid because >>? There is a great number of people now, members of the wikipedia community and random visitors interested in First Person Shooters who have either not removed the link in question or who have re-added it. The number who wish it removed is by comparison tiny. Furthermore, most of the arguments about its usefullness are on their face false. The remainder are based on anything BUT it's usefulness. Other links were also summarily removed and now that cannot be questioned because it's assumed that anyone undoing such an edit is a spammer or some other improper (and false) label.

Just as in the name of usefulness a very useful link has been removed, now community involvement is being removed in the name of community consensus. This must stop. The bottom line is that firstpersonshooters.net has as much information, easier to find and with no potential bias, as any other gaming site and because it's genre specific it clearly fills in best for this article's shortcomings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HavenBastion (talk • contribs) — HavenBastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There was a place for people to discuss all the links in question: I opened that open, but only me and one anon IP (not the one adding it back in the one at 68.54.56.198) took advantage of it. Yes, 68.54.56.198 was blocked near the start of this, which is why after a day I let it drop and awaited his response. It never came. This was for all the links, not just FPS.net. If the anon was insistent that it wasn't just his site but all the above sites that should have been kept due to the argument that they sat there for a year with no changes and thus had consensus (which is not a WP policy), then I wouldn't have expected to see the conflict of interest issues that came up, but we now know that exists, so there's a "hot button" for that. Also, do not misconstrue that just because there may be millions of visitors that want to know about FPS games, they are not the consensus -- it is only the editors that are working on the page that define that; you hope they represent the visitors to the page or at least understand what intentions the visitors had. If you don't speak your mind when something comes up that you disagree to as an editor, then that's basically allowing the current editor consensus decide the page's changes. And its not like the issue is closed forever - just that I've seen no one try to defend any of the other links to a great degree as FPS.net.

That said, regardless of COI issues and consensus issues, there is a problem with FPS.net, and that it is that it has (albeit in a grey-area) copyvios that make it immediately fail the criteria for external linkage. I followed up with WP:EL and page that contain or link to abandonware, despite the questionable nature of this and the insistence that the site responds to all removal requests immediately, will still cause problems from a WP standpoint (accessory to copyvio crimes) and thus must not be (not should not be) linked to. There's also the question about directly copying text content from non-GFDL sites which brings up plagiarism which is also a copyvio and thus makes it not appropriate to link to. Even if these copyvios are in a grey-area, WP has to, by its charter and board, avoid breaking any laws and thus those aspects of FPS.net are big red flags for linking. This is generally why, at the end of the day, personal and fan sites are discouraged because there are questionable copyvios for much of their material, regardless if the rest of the material is pristine and perfect for inclusion. --MASEM 12:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was going to finally be some intelligent discussion about the actions that were already summarily decided but then I see you saying this and that are the case without allowing for discussion. That's the problem that created all this mess in the first place. You are not the final arbiter of common sense, or copyright, or wikipedia policy, or anything else anymore than the others who have decided their word is law. All the goodness of wikipedia is wrapped up in its community and that's what you(recent editors) are specifically disallowing. Let's have your comments added as "I Think" instead of "This is how it is" and then perhaps it will finally be determined whether that, or any of the other links SHOULD be here. That hasn't happened yet and it won't as long as "this is how it is" is seen as how it is instead of just words to that effect. Your opinion, regardless of your power-base, is no more relevant than any other random person. Let's have a DiscussioN about it and THEN lets all come to an agreement about not only what should be done but why. That's how it's supposed to work. That's what made wikis great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HavenBastion (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 October 2007 — HavenBastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Woops, I forgot to talk about the actual issue raised. Any site can run into copyright trouble. The very reason you're so worried about it is that you're trying to prevent it happening to Wikipedia. Well, because it can happen to any site, that makes it irrelevant to say so. What's important is the site's policy for dealing with said issues if they occur. It also so happens that there has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a legal case regarding abandonwarez. The important questions here are not whether something might run afoul of wikipedia policy, the important questions are whether they do something good, or bad. If wikipedia policy doesn't prevent bad, it's bad policy, a restriction of freedom needlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HavenBastion (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, any site can have a copyright issue - the copyright field changes every day. Should a well established site that was added without copyvios becomes a copyvio later with no obvious resolution of that problem, then the site should be removed. With resepct to the Wikipedia project, they have to lay down the law that they have to keep their nose clean of copyright problems; for example, they've demanded that all non-free images, by April 2008, either be tagged with appropriate licensing and fair use rationale, or that they are deleted. Similarly, linking to a site containing willful copyright infringement is also a crime, and that's why a 'rule (not guideline) that this is not allowed. Now I know abandonware is questionable - yes, no one has been tried on it as far as I know, but by strict definition, distributing it is illegal. Until the validity of abandonware is proven and validated by court or law, WP has to keep itself clean of it, even if the link is the most valuable link for that subject in the entire Internet. --MASEM 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal to use copyrighted material if the owner, in the case of abandonwarez largly unknown, doesn't require you to not use it. A good faith effort to avoid copyright violation coupled with the no-profit-motive would exempt any potential for copyright trouble in this instance. There is no requirement under the copyright laws of any country that you must have a contract with the copyright owner to use their works, only that if you do use their works it must meet with their approval. Legally and otherwise, not saying anything is tacit approval. Although copyright does not have to be "vigorously defended" like trademark, it still must be defended or the issue is moot. Abandonwarez are legal until shown to be otherwise. Saying that material which the copyright owner (if any) doesn't know he owns or doesn't care if he owns, or if it's distributed cannot be used would put an extreme chilling effect on free speech and would be unconstitutional anyway. Copyright law was created for the good of the populace and these cases illustrate perfectly how and where they do not apply. Morally speaking, if they don't care, there's no reason for you, me, wikipedia, or anyone else to care either. Legally, until they defend it in some manner it may as well not exist. And IF they do, it will be removed from that site as per it's guidelines. Speaking of which, linking to a site which provides torrents, as been legally permissible for some time even though the content of those torrents is often blatantly illegal. Since this content is not Prima Facia illegal, and since Wikipedia is only a link to the site, not the data, there really is no potential for copyright issue regarding Wikipedia whatsoever. This issue is a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HavenBastion (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on linking to abandonware sites within WP (that it, it is forbidden). Note that there is a special case of Home of the Underdogs only because it is a notable web page that needs an article. --MASEM 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not an abandonware site any more than google is a music site.

"Addendum: Just to clarify. We can link to HOTU in the article on HOTU, but we can not do something like link to the corresponding HOTU page in each game's article."

"Well, that depends. Unlike most War3z sites, HOTU does offer independent reviews of games. HOTU also as a policy of not giving download links if the copyright owner objects. They also hold a few games with permission from the copyright owners, and many games that are indie, freeware, or otherwise "available"."

It seems that these are exactly the arguments under discussion here. FirstPersonShooters.net a) wasn't linked to any specific games page. b) offers independent reviews of games, c) has a policy of not giving download links if the copyright owner objects d) holds a few games with permission from the copyright owners e) has many games which are indie, freeware or otherwise "available". etc etc. good grief. I can't believe how absurd this entire argument is.

The only reason Underdogs is notable is BECAUSE of its abandonwarez. FPS on the other hand is notable as a resource, an encyclopedia of the genre. It still has the most complete list of the genre ever compiled and it is constantly being filled with content and links. There is not another resource on the net which does this for just FPS games to anywhere near as complete a job. If anything the link to Mobygames should be moved to Video Games and the link to blues news footnoted to show it has lots of data about non-fps games. the reason they're included is that despite their not being about it, they provide good information about this particular genre. this site does precisely that but concentrates on the focus of this article. The issues being raised are irrelevant, moot or false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HavenBastion (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the difference: To cover a notable website (HOTU) that includes possible copyvio, it is necessary to link to that site through the article that discusses it, but any links in any other context are not allowed from WP. Here, we are not talking about a page that covers FPS.net the website, we are talking about a page that covers FPS the genre of video games. To point to a site with copyvios from a video game genre is violating WP's copyright policy; HOTU is the exception and not the rule because of exactly the fact they are notable for abandonware. FPS.net is not notable by WP's definition, so presently we'll never see an article about it, so linking to it using the logic of the HOTU case doesn't apply. --MASEM 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Key technologies developed by FPS genre? I don't think so

The following statement is simply not true: "In the modern era of video games, key technologies such as 3D graphics, online play, and modding were first showcased by FPS." All these technologies were first showcased in the flight sim genre back in the early 1990s. Games such as the original Red Baron (1990) and Aces of the Pacific (1992) had mods and Red Baron 2 (1997) had mods, 3D graphics technology and online play before FPS games came to the fore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.21.244 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 3D-graphics and modding were probably not first seen in FPS-games, but are you saying that there were also online flight-simulators before Doom (1993) came out? --Threedots dead (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno what the anon meant, but I believe there were networked military simulators before Doom, but they weren't 'online' as in internet. There were pre-doom online versions of games such as Spacewar!, though. - Ehheh (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Had no idea...--Threedots dead (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles Red Baron (video game) and Aces of the Pacific do not indicate modding as a significant part of its offering. Red Baron 2 does, but it's a 1997 game, far beyond contention, and the article only mentions skins -- compare this to the Quake engine of 1996. We can disambiguate by changing "showcased" to "made significant", so that "invented" cannot be implied. We can change "3D graphics" to "3D-accelerated graphics", and "online play" to "Internet play", eschewing early BBS systems. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Commonly known as the Killzone style of controls"

Pfft.58.172.187.227 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

firstpersonshooters.net

i've read about all of the things on the various pages about this issue and i find your removal of that link to be mean-spirited, insipid, arbitrary and capricious. it is a better link that bluesnews because it's not time-specific and better than mobygames because it is genre specific. furthermore, your warning on the links section is not only unneeded but is motivated PURELy by avarice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.149.99 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because the site owner was repeatedly spamming the link, which is in violation of the spam policy and the conflict of interest policy. The site is just a (mostly plagarised, by the way) compendium of reviews, and it does not add any useful information to the article, further violating the external links policy. So, no, the removal was not mean-spirited or capricious. It violates Wikipedia policy, and must be removed as soon as humanly possible. Also, what exactly does avarice (greed) and insipidity ("lacking taste or savor") have to do with this? NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia itself isn't a "compendium of" information from other sources? Your definition of spam seems to differ from the widely accepted one meaning unsolicited commercial contact to an individual. So much so that I call into question your use of the words "the" and "a" to the same degree. Since you were one of the main names I saw in all the "debate" and since your arguments shifted from point to point until you found ones that other editors were want to back you up on, I can only assume that you cannot logically back up your points. It is not "just a compendium of reviews" and it very much adds useful information, such as, for example, anything and everything about the genre. Averice has to do with wanting what's good for your ego instead of the community, and insipid.. well, reread your post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.127.88 (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read how WP defines "spam" when talking about external links at WP:SPAM. In addition, fps net contained abandonware which is of questionable copyright quality (despite what assurances we have for that material being removed if contested) - for legal purposes, WP cannot allow links to that. --MASEM 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strides for realism

As is, nearly the entire section should be deleted, as it sounds like a who's who of games with marginally relevant "realism". The section should, IMO, be a history of technologies like 3D acceleration, lighting, anti-aliasing, physics, etc. as used in FPS. Addressing game content (such as "realistic tank models") has no objective boundaries, as "realism" (which, as written, is really a discussion of photorealism) has been incrementally improving since the days of Asteroids and early flight sims. We don't need to list everyone's personal favorite WWII game, nor are historic-setting games necessarily realistic -- I certainly don't consider them to be. Unless someone will propose to rewrite the section, with an eye toward encyclopedic standards, I am going to slash and burn most of it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I am going to initiate the first phase (maybe that might draw some opinions). I am going to remove any discussion that doesn't even attempt to address how the game was more realistic than its peers. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Establishing the "person" part of first-person

We should not include flight, space, or vehicle sims as part of the genre, with respect to the bloated early history sections. These genres were already well-established prior to Doom defining the standard FPS, and the sections reek of revisionism, especially Spasim whose creator is now offering money to prove that it wasn't the first "3D virtual reality" game -- well, virtual reality is cool but that's not what makes FPS what it is -- the name "Spasim" tells you exactly what genre the game is actually in. Discussion of these genres' history should be moved to the appropriate articles, which I will be doing if nobody beats me to it. I realize that some exceptions and borderline cases may exist, but we'll deal with them as they come up. However, where an established genre exists, and a game clearly belongs to it, it should not be discussed in this article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crysis

Stop removing the information on [Crysis]]! It's not a promotion or WP:PEACOCK at all. It's stating that it took a major step in advancing physics in gaming. Maybe revolutionized is too POV of a term for you Wikipedia hardliners, which is perfectly fine, but instead of deleting the info, just tweak it or write it in a way that you think is more "neutral". The fact is is that no game had ever even come close to replicating Crysis's physics engine before it. bob rulz (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Crysis can be considered anything near revolutionary when it is in fact an incremental improvement over Far Cry. What happens when Crysis 2 is released? Will that be "revolutionary" also? The mention of Crysis, in addition to sounding like something taken from an advertisement, also has a flavor-of-the-week feel to it. I won't contest a mention of Crysis but the line should have the same kind of tone as the line about Half-Life 2: state what it contributed to the genre and don't try to fluff it up with words like "revolutionary". Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Crysis 2 will be revolutionary. But maybe it won't. There's no way to know now; it's a moot point. But I can agree that revolutionary doesn't have to be used. However, that's no reason to delete the whole sentence, just rewrite it in a way that you're satisfied with. bob rulz (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the impetus is on me to rewrite the sentence. As I said above, I personally don't believe that it is revolutionary or otherwise worth highlighting, and the sentence as-is is not appropriately NPOV, so removal is the most sensible option for me. If you believe that Crysis is worth mentioning, with respect to the fact that Far Cry isn't, nor most other games that have made even bigger impacts on the genre, you can rewrite the sentence in an objective manner and I will be happy with that. If there is no way to objectively quantify the statement you want to make about Crysis, then perhaps the game isn't worth mentioning after all? Can you at least explain what Crysis's environment does that other games don't do? Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Moderation?

I didn't know wikipedia was ran by such Tyrants. Why should the public even bother contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.162.78 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

AI?

So... any mention of the artificial intelligence subsystems required in an FPS, and how they differ from those in other games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Goldeneyeemulated4lw.jpg

The image Image:Goldeneyeemulated4lw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Wolf3d pc.png
• Image:ST Midi Maze.png
• Image:Halflife ingame.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's refine definition to include Portal, Descent, Forsaken

I feel as though the present razor to define what is or is not an FPS is too anglo-centric, and hits the wrong mark. There is no citation for this passage: "The character is nominally a literal person; humanoid movement is expected. Games that primarily involve piloting vehicles are more correctly classified as vehicle simulation games."

I feel that games like Descent and Forsaken belong in the FPS category while games like Star Fox and "Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter" do not. My intent here is to replace the badly defined "humanoid movement" expectation with the concept of free orthogonal movement around a motionless rest state (optionally augmented by environmental forces such as gravity, or medium-viscosity such as wind, moving walkways, river currents, etc). In many flight sims the rest state is moving at a steady clip like an airplane, or else in flight sims where hovering is possible such as in a helicopter, movement controls are non-orthagonal.

I contend that a consistent line cannot easily be drawn between orthogonal vehicle games like Descent/Forsaken and conventional FPS, because a majority of FPS allow you to optionally wear or ride a number of first-person vehicles, many of which share traits with the vehicles in Descent/Forsaken. As early as Duke Nukem 3D your jetpack allows you a third (orthagonal) degree of movement. Futhermore, Descent and Forsaken are not allowing you to "simulate" anything meaningful. The properties of the vehicle you pilot merely highlight the FPS features of the game.

The reason why I feel the orthogonal movement clause and rest state is essential however is because that lends the player directly into a style of melee combat which is not possible in non-orthogonal flight combat games. In both Half Life and Forsaken, you can duck in and out of cover firing volleys of shots at your opponent. You can stand and fight, or turn and run at a moment's notice. You can hide and seek. You can circle-strafe. These tactics are not possible (at least not in the same capacity) in flight simulators, and they define the essense of FPS greater than anglo-centricity does.

I also noticed that it is inferred that Portal is not considered FPS. While I agree that it's focus on puzzle solving over combat is high, I see "FPS" as more of a statement about game mechanic than game content.. largely because game content can be considered ephemeral. Many user-created maps put lots of emphasis on combat against turrets, rocket platforms, and even some half-life enemies. While I know that your only handheld "weapon" does not deal direct damage to your adversaries, it is nonetheless hand-held and it is a weapon. So, for example, I would not classify Narbacular Drop as a First Person Shooter. There — literally — is no shooting involved, just pointing.

I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think. If I can come across some articles that back up my position (perhaps stronger than ones that simply call Descent an FPS) then I shall apply those here as well and perhaps start modifying the article.

Jesset77 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We can only go as far as sources allow us to go: we cannot introduce original research or point of views into articles without reliable sources. --MASEM 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles here does not define FPS as an individual genre.

After reading this article, I've come to the conclusion, the people who wrote this, have no idea what they're talking about. The article isn't about the FPS genre, it's about features in certain games that you may have played. This article needs to be more specific to FPS, and not just video games in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadd990 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not a good article. The history section is becoming more and more a section about video games editors play and like. Just some examples:

• Maybe it is OK to cite the first installment of the Halo series, but why using an entire paragraph to explain that all of the Halo games are excellent ? I don't think that Halo 2 or 3 bring anything new to the genre (I'm not saying that these games are not good, it is not the point here).
• Multiplayer is not really addressed. What is the first game which introduced Multiplayer ? Did Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament really introduced something new to the genre ?
• There is nothing about open worlds and open narrative which begin to become standard in new FPS now.
• Some of the Genre-blending part would better be in the History section (Descent for example), or maybe be deleted

Hervegirod (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blended genres

Frontlines: Fuel of War can be added ans stated as being a fps with strategy game elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.170.254 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)