Jump to content

Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy

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

Article Expansion

[edit]

Psi-Ops is one of my all time favorite games, and I'd be more than happy to contribute to the game. I'll add character information and try to leave out as many spoilers as possible. If anyone would like to help compile information please leave a message on my talk page. Most of my info will be gathered from official manuals and websites --Zeerus (ETC) 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see sales figures too. And why there won't be a sequel. --68.103.154.140 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie

[edit]

There were reports a while back about a Psi-Ops movie (see here: [1]). Shouldn't the possibilty of a movie based on the game be mentioned in the article? 70.17.135.145 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The storyline was pretty damned detailed in the game, they practically have a script written for them. They would just need to iron out the dialogue, and prevent themselves from getting cheesy with it. -- Dan N.


Remote Viewing/Scrying

[edit]

I don't recall Remote Viewing being the same as Scrying... Remote viewing is a method of seeing that which is outside your field of view, scrying is "seeing" things through a medium, such as a crystal ball. While for some of you it may seem to be the same thing, RV doesn't require anything but your mind, and has a narrowed "sub-skill" called remote presence, in which your awareness is actually present at the place you are visiting, and can interact with objects, move through the room, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.75.127 (talk • contribs)

Actually, there are many dfferent types of Scrying. I once had a friend who was involved with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and he told me about a type of scrying that does not use any medium, and is instead almost identical to remote viewing. He said that this version of Scrying was almost exactly the same as remote viewing, with only a few differences in technique and the reasons for preforming it. So based on that, Remote viewing and certain types of scrying are, in fact, the same thing. 141.154.185.30 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

[edit]

GameSpot is reporting that Midway is being sued by a Hollywood screenwriter who says he has a 1998 screenplay with the name of "Psi-ops" and the premise of Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy is very similar to the premise of his screenplay that he's been trying to shop around from 2000-2003 and the U.S. PTO has a listing of "Psi-ops" registered to the screenwriter dated March 26, 1998 while Midway's registering of "Psi-ops" is dated July 9, 2004. [2] KSweeley 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

[edit]

There is a Japanese version, so there should be an article in Japanese WhisperToMe (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Can there be a link to here? 97.124.43.205 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 00:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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 23:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy. 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) 04:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Great to see this game nominated. I'll take this one on. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started the review below. Feel free to cross out or comment on anything as you go. As ever I'm mindful some of these enter the territory of personal opinion. Note I will follow up on some other aspects of the review, including doing a source check.

Review

[edit]

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:MOS? Mostly. ☒N Plot sections usually follows gameplay. exclamation mark  Sections covering development, promotion and release are usually merged but there's enough content to be no big deal. exclamation mark  Given the length is sufficient and the potential for significant expansion of the reception section as discussed below, I'd recommend considering subdividing reception into 'Sales' (if it can be found), then 'Reviews', 'Accolades' and 'Retrospective reception', given some of the reviews are contemporary, and some of what's in the 'Legacy' section is less a legacy and more retrospective praise for the game.

Switched the plot and gameplay sections. I don't want to split up reception because MOS:LAYOUT (one of the few MOS pages that apply to GA) says that subheadings shouldn't be overused to sort individual paragraphs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call! Where the VG MOS and the general MOS conflict on GA standards, stands to reason to use the latter. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article generally well-written? Yes. I could suggest some stylistic choices around prioritising active over passive voice and making drawn-out statements more concise, but these are not particularly critical to the GAN. exclamation mark  One paragraph that stands out to me is the last paragraph of the reception section, which lists random comparisons raised in reviews to other works and media. This strikes me as a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and could be condensed to just stating that "Reviewers found the motifs of Psi-Ops to be reminiscent of other creative works, such as [X], with comparisons drawn between the game and Second Sight, a first-person shooter with a similar premise". Especially when the comparisons aren't corroborated by other sources, it's not really that significant to point out.

I've removed that last paragraph. Since it's just one person, it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article broad enough in its coverage? Mostly. ☒N Psi-Ops received impressively broad reviews and there's quite a lot of WP:VG/S sources that are missed in the article: extant online reviews are: 1UP,[1] Electronic Gaming Monthly,[2] Game Informer,[3] Game Revolution,[4] GamePro,[5] GameSpy,[6] GameZone,[7] Official Xbox Magazine (available here),[8] Team Xbox,[9] and PALGN.[10] exclamation mark  If you are adding these sources to the template, make sure to keep it to about ten, prioritising the most high-profile ones. exclamation mark  You may also like to organise the review section thematically when adding more review coverage as discussed in the WP:VG/MOS. exclamation mark  If there are plenty of review sources yet to be included in the article, I wonder if there is more information out there that can provide more depth on development without relying on the Cinelinx article? I'm happy to assist with looking.

At a glance I didn't see any "main aspects" in those reviews that aren't in the article, but I'll take a closer look at them soon either way and any relevant details. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - poor framing, you're right this isn't an issue with breadth as the concept is represented in the GA criteria. Given there's only three contemporary reviews cited, pretty closely intermingled with retrospective reception, I think there's some merit in broadening the sourcing to verify and illustrate that the points raised are representative of the tenor of critical reception upon release. There's an opportunity to even split the two types of reception to make this much clearer, but as with the thematic paragraphing, that is fairly outside the scope of the GAN and not necessary to do now. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the reviews you found and decided to rewrite the reception section entirely. Out of curiosity, what was your method for finding those reviews? Did you look specifically for archives of 1UP, GameSpy, etc? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, I recognize that was quite a lot of work. There's a reliable source list and search engine, but I tend to use (1) aggregators including Metacritic, Opencritic and MobyGames, and then (2) manually search entries in the Internet Archive. I'll do a quick citation check and flag any issues I come across but if not that seems to be it for the review. Trying to tone down the pedantry. Great work! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, the citations, particularly for the development and legacy sections, seem spot-on with no issues. I think there's not really anything else to add that would hold up a GAN at this point. Thanks for taking on the additional reviews in earnest. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Mostly, but there are some issues. ☒N The link to a download for the game on a file sharing website may be a WP:COPYVIO: just because the publisher freely released it on their website does not mean that third party sources necessarily have the license to distribute it, although I note there's sources suggesting it was released for free. Best to avoid anyway. exclamation mark  Not sure about the fix link, but at any rate Wikipedia isn't really a file sharing directory. exclamation mark  Best practice is for screenshots to have a description outlining why they are necessary to visually illustrate something in the game, but this is a minor issue.

Removed the links. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Leone, Matt (17 June 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". 1UP. Archived from the original on 26 June 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  2. ^ "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 181. August 2004. p. 102.
  3. ^ Reiner, Andrew. "PsiOps: The Mindgate Conspiracy - A Cerebral Massacre". Game Informer. Archived from the original on 31 October 2005. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  4. ^ Dodson, Joe (June 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". Game Revolution. Archived from the original on 27 June 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2004.
  5. ^ "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". GamePro. 1 July 2004. Archived from the original on 26 September 2005. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  6. ^ Tuttle, Will (10 June 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". GameSpy. Archived from the original on 15 June 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  7. ^ Zacarias, Eduardo (21 June 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". GameZone. Archived from the original on 24 June 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  8. ^ Reyes, Francesca (August 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". Official Xbox Magazine. No. 34. p. 81.
  9. ^ Soboleski, Brent (17 June 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". Team Xbox. Archived from the original on 2 August 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  10. ^ Sell, Chris (30 September 2004). "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy Review". PALGN. Archived from the original on 22 October 2004. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psi-Ops:_The_Mindgate_Conspiracy&oldid=1214324015"