Talk:Need for Speed: High Stakes

Rewrite

This article needs to be completely re-written. No links, no mention of any add-ons and some of the stuff isn't true. I'll try do it when I get a chance. --Bears54 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "In the Playstation version damage is a bit different other wise the same in some areas from its PC counterpart like its PC counterpart damage can also be toggled on or off." statement is uber! Very poor grammar and lotta mistakes... Correcting... Echad 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, rewritten alot... Some funny grammar errors included: the cillvian driver, autmatically, is a bit different other wise the same in some areas from its PC counterpart like its PC counterpart, Hot Pursuit's Hot Pursuit mode, out raced a, the player version of the cop driver wears a American police uniform when driving any police car (does he drive a not police car?), expect (it meant except), etc. The article still needs work... Echad 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kusunose 07:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Need for Speed III: High Stakes → Need for Speed: High Stakes — A user renamed this page. I don't know if it was in good or bad faith, but the name is wrong. The game does not have a number in it's name, as it can be seen in the boxart. nickin conversation contribution 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed it back as such. APR76 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modding Scene Rewrite

It might be a good idea to add in a real section about the modding community for this game... If no one wants to write it I will because I am a good writer and this is my favorite video game of all time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.78.252 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Modding community discussions don't form a part of an informative article. U¹ _quattro TALK 11:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: This is basically "Hot Pursuit 1.5"

There's little information within the article that explains that this game is basically a tweaked version of NFS: Hot Pursuit. All of the tracks and most of the cars that appeared previously are here as well. Kschang77 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Now that there's an actual gameplay section describing the different game modes, these recent additions don't really have a place in the article; They're not in like with WP:VG/GL's section naming guidelines, i.e sticking to using sections like "Plot, "Gameplay", "Reception" etc. That is to say the "notable changes" section sticks out like a sore thumb, but a bigger problem is that there's no indication as to how or why any of this is notable. Again, as an uninitiated reader, I cannot glance anything useful from it. It's also written in the wrong tense -- It's using past tense, but this is discouraged unless a game has become unavailable, for example an MMO that has since shut down. It's also putting undue weight on a slew of small details. This makes sense within the context of the review, but ratching up every one of them from the article on an encyclopedic article does not really make sense. The biggest value is the gamespot article that is cited, but I feel this would be put to better use in a more generalized way as part of the Reception section as opposed to having all its contents paraphrased in a separate, non-standard category. Eik Corell (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The play station and PC version changes need a separate mention beacuse the article described the game in the way that "It is based on Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit" and nothing else while in reality, it wasn't the case. It was only the PC version which was based on the old instalment. Which is why it was necessary to mention that the play station version recieved major changes. It was also necessary to mention that because people think that it is Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit with add ons while this isn't the case either. Past tense was used because this game is almost 20 years old. It was used to describe it as such. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This lands us back at WP:V then - We're basing an entire category of the article on one source, the Gamespot article, and the amount of info we're deriving from it cosntitutes indiscriminate info in my opinion -- The article now has a proper gameplay section, so all these comparatives are not useful anymore. As you said, the article used to be more or less "It is based on Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit", but this is no longer the case, so this list of comparatives is even less useful now. Though articles can of course contain comparative info, they're supposed to do so in a concise, limited manner and where possible incorporate relevant details concisely into the gameplay section. This is doing none of these; subordinating this info to the development section only partially addresses the naming problem because the development section is just being used as a placeholder section for this arguably problematic info. And we're still running afoul of other problems: Being entirely based on one source is the biggest one, indiscriminately dumping all the points made into the article. Thinking about this specific point, it seems like we're straying out of the more general nature the IINFO guideline I mentioned and into its more relevant video game version: WP:GAMECRUFT. As I hinted at, while we rely on sources, we shouldn't just parrot what the sources say as a lot of what they mention is a lot different than what Wikipedia's guidelines permit. Other than that, both the source and articles not actually saying how or why these things are notable is another problem. Lastly, as said, there is enough info in the gameplay section now to not have to rely on comparatives anymore, so all of the above could even be considered irrelevant. The best thing to do in my opinion would be to rewrite this info to general information. Instead of saying that the game now features X compared to Y of the last game, simply state that it features X. This is the way to make these additions relevant for the average reader, and would solve most of the problems I think. Eik Corell (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The other sources mentioned later in the article state the same info but you are correct. As you have now modified it, it seems less relevant. You can merge the information in a generalized way as you had said. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/19990508012011/http://www.videogames.com/features/universal/need_dd/index.html

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Need for Speed: High Stakes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Going to review this article this week. Love racing games in all their forms, so excited to dive in. Nomader (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some small prose notes that can be fixed, including some misspellings that need to be addressed.

• In the beginning of the gameplay section, I'd change "must drive exotic cars" to "drive exotic cars". The 'must' is unnecessary there and should be cut. Further, is "race" a better word to use here instead of "drive", or would it be too specific in this case?

I agree that 'must' is unnecessary. I also replaced 'drive' with 'race', though I don't really have a preference.

• It says "races races" -- should cut out one of them.

Fixed

• I found the "Pursuits have the ability..." sentence to be a bit confusing. Is that "police pursuits have the ability"?

That's correct. I added the word 'police' to avoid any confusion.

• "Tier" shouldn't be capitalized, not a formal title.

Fixed

• Should be "an online multiplayer mode" instead of "a".

Fixed

• In the development section, "Feaures" should be "Features"

Fixed

• "Occured" should be "Occurred".

Fixed

• "criticised" should be "criticized" in the reception section (although honestly this may be a UK spelling thing, in which case keep it)

Fixed. It is UK spelling, but the game is American, so 'criticized' is correct in this article's context.

• "disadvanatge" should be "disadvantage"

Fixed

• "longetivity" should be "longevity"

Fixed

• I think you can cut down this sentence a bit. Instead of "is in native tongue, which varies depending on where a race takes place", which sounds a bit awkward, I'd say, "remarked that the language of the police chatter is in the native tongue of wherever the race is taking place." I think the original version here makes it sounds like native tongue is the language.

Replaced with "remarked that the language of the police chatter is in the native tongue of the race location", which is a bit simpler.

• I think you could cut out the "where multiple cops can chase players at the same time" in the reception section -- you defined this type of race in detail in the gameplay section.

Removed. I also replaced 'however' with 'but' now that the sentence is shorter.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyvios detected and extremely detailed sourcing here. Copyvio checker only saw quotes as being flagged, so good to go. Spot check of sources passes muster.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fits the standard scope of a video game Wikipedia page well here.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Will pass as soon as the generally minor grammatical pieces I listed above are fixed. Great, terrific work here! Nomader (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues you have raised and also made some minor copy-edits. Please let me know if you find any other issues. Regards --Niwi3 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on my end -- good to go! I'm passing the article here, really terrific work. Nomader (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries and thanks again. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)