Jump to content

Talk:List of Take-Two Interactive games

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


North American release dates?

[edit]

For the release dates in the table, will we be using the North American ones? What about for games that are published separately for each console? Like, a game might be released for Xbox in 2005 and then ported to PlayStation 2 in 2006, and then maybe to PC in 2008. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Take-Two is an American company, I think it makes sense to go with North American release dates. When a game is released on more than one platform, there should be an entry for each platform, so that the "platform" column in the table can be sorted. The games are listed chronologically, so if a game came out in 2005 for Xbox and 2006 for PlayStation, list them separately. There are a few games like that already in the table, like Sid Meier's Pirates and L.A. Noire. – Zntrip 05:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thank you so much for expanding my article. People like you are revolutionizing video game history, and at the very least, providing more ways for gamers to get information about their favorite video game companies. As for the release date issue, I agree. Good idea. We could address it at the top of the article with a note indicating the North American release dates. I'll do that. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, but it's really not a big deal. With your help, this list will turn out great once finished, but there is quite a bit more work to do. If you have any concerns or questions about editing, please feel free to contact me. – Zntrip 20:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto 2

[edit]

NOTE: Grand Theft Auto 2 is listed twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.132.209 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, it's now taken care of. – Zntrip 23:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding

[edit]

While I'm all in favor of color coding of tables, it's usually more useful if it uses only two to three colors. Any more than that, and you run the risk of just making it more confusing and harder to use. This table uses nine colors. I'm not color blind, but I can see the possibility that this list is impossible to read for some users, especially because of some of the darker colors. Plus, the colors present information that is already included in one of the columns (the publisher). Can we nix the color coding of this table? I don't see it as a benefit in this case. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for removing the colours, and think you could probably be bold and do so without much argument. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind colors in general, but the way it is now is ugly. I don't oppose removing all color as the easiest way to fix it...but I wouldn't oppose it if people wanted to re-add a better color scheme in the future either. Just not this one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, Sam Walton and Sergecross73. I don't oppose color-coding it either, but, as I stated above, I don't think color-coding it for publishers is very useful (or aesthetic). If someone wants to re-introduce a better color-scheme for some other purpose, such as the one used here, I wouldn't oppose it. I acted on Sam Walton's advice and just removed all the color-coding. We'll see if anyone complains. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the old revision and I concur with Sergecross73 that it's just unpleasant. Specifically, the colors are too saturated and dark. Tezero (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color-coding publishers is not very useful since the info is right in the column, and you can't quickly glance down the list anyways since the legend is huge. So, no colors for publishers under any color scheme. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 80 external links on List of Take-Two Interactive video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take-Two Interactive Games

[edit]

The games Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller and Bureau 13 are listed as GameTek developed games, but in fact they are developed by Take-Two Interactive and published by GameTek. Do we change the developer to Take-Two Interactive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouHateThePlayer (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that Sega published NFL 2K5 (and it's actually titled "ESPN NFL 2K5". Sega is on the game cover. I can't find "Global Software" anywhere. This is one that may need some investigation. ~2K Player~

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Take-Two Interactive video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Take-Two Interactive video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

This article desperately needs to be split, it's exceeding 400kB of almost entirely text. I propose an A-L, M-Z split like other lists of games. Rob3512 chat? what I did 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob3512, definetly in favor of a split, but I'd argue that it would make more sense to split by publishing label than by alphabet. List of games by Rockstar Games, already exists, so we could also have List of 2K games, List of Private Division games, List of Gathering of Developers games, and so forth. Lordtobi (✉) 10:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a better idea. Rob3512 chat? what I did 10:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@YouHateThePlayer: Would you be up to do this? I think the first important step would be to extract 2K-published games to its own list and remove 2K and Rockstar games from this list here (Rockstar already has its own games article). Lordtobi (✉) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Every time I edit this page to put a new game or a reference it takes so much time... I'll start on 2K then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouHateThePlayer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Take-Two_Interactive_games&oldid=1208303692"