Jump to content

Talk:Sam & Max Save the World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sam & Max Season One)
Good articleSam & Max Save the World has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

New title?

[edit]

I'm not sure if it is correct to rename the page as it as been known as season one for more than two years already. The official site also uses the season one/two, and this name is used on released boxsets. Mamen (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought at first, but this seems to be the new name used for marketing in general for these products. The Wii and PC versions are being republished with this name—packages bearing "Sam & Max: Season One" won't be on the shelves for long—and subsequent releases, such as the Xbox Arcade one, will be using these names too. Plus, Season Three (and any others) will be abandoning that name style as well. Presumably, the official site will also update in due course. Its unconventional for a game developer to do this, but it has been done and it makes sense to update Wikipedia to match. A record of the name change should be noted in the article's development section, when it gets one. See the relevant news entry. -- Sabre (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're changing the title. The official site will be updated soon, but every news outlet got the press release from Telltale. Example: The new monikers are Sam & Max Save the World and Sam & Max Beyond Time and Space. And by the way, Season Two will be released for the Wii as Beyond Space and Time. JAF1970 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Sabre. Didn't see that one. PS, I noted the name change on both articles for the Feb 26 update. JAF1970 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check gametap too but I wouldn't be surprised if the title change continues there as well. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small correction, the sentences "If you fear change, think of our website as your safe haven. Both Sam & Max seasons are still available here, with the same titles you're used to." seem to indicate that the old names will still be used on their website. Davhorn (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Telltale employee, the fear was having to find and change every instance of Season One and Season Two on the site. ;) JAF1970 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate episode articles

[edit]

Are these really needed? As far as I can see, they consist of a bloated plot synopsis and not much else. Couldn't this be integrated into the series article? Davhorn (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the great work Sabre's done to get this up to GA, no, they're not necessary. The only thing I would change is to make sure to spell out where each episode "starts" in the plot summary, as to not necessitate a plot summary of each episode. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "yes", they are needed. Each one has its own reception and far more detailed reviews than this generalised overview I've written. Look at the Game Rankings and Metacritic pages for individual episodes, there's tonnes of reviews, more than enough to craft a proper, episode-specific reception section of similar quality to other games. Plus, each episode has unique development information and developer commentary tracks available; that does allow for something of a development section to be added. Importantly, the sources that cover the individual episodes are the mainstream gaming sources: note that most of the reviews for the season as a whole used for the reception here aren't your usual ones like IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, 1UP etc. The individual episodes can be made into decent articles beyond the mere plot summaries they currently are, and I do intend to improve them, with this article acting as the central link. If it were just left to this article, we'd only be scratching the surface of what's been written by third-party sources on the topic. -- Sabre (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly love to see episode articles - if Sabre is accurate in saying they're notable enough, of course. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, I don't see any need for the specific episodes having their own articles. For one, you say they can be expanded, but in two months since stating that not much notable information has been added to the articles. In fact, every article only consists of about three things: a bloated in-depth plot summary (which wiki is not the place for), a walk-through for the episode (again wiki is not the place), and useless trivia (which wiki frowns upon). You talked about adding reception and review information, but not a single article has that info. Additionally, while each one was released as an episode, they were not developed completely isolated from each other. There is an over-arching meta-plot to the season, all use the same engine, etc. There's individual development for chapters in a novel. Thus any development info simply belongs in the season article. It's one game, it's been collected as such, the episodes even have direct continuation in gameplay mechanics (certain items like the "bug") which carry from one episode to the next. There are tons of examples of movies released in more than one part (Kill Bill), or novels released in chapters in magazines), yet their purposes are better served in one article. Just because you have some obsession making useless articles yet don't actually go about adding notable info or references (and just adding a bunch of game reviews from game reviewing cites does not count as notable references) doesn't mean they should have separate articles. The exception would be in any one episode was particularly notable in the real world... which frankly I doubt any are. I went, and rightfully so, tagged all the episode articles in terms of notability and requiring reliable notable sources. If they aren't met in a reasonable time, the articles will be nominated for mergal or deletion.24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to address that indignant wall of next all at once: did it occur to you that I haven't got around to it yet? If you look through the article histories, you'll see that I've hardly touched the episode articles at all; I didn't even create them - so there's absolutely no justification for snide comments such as "some obsession making useless articles". There is no deadline and I have other things to do on this site, not to mention I have a life to deal with outside this site as well. I'm not going jump to attention at your beck and call. Yes, the articles are currently rubbish. But as mentioned above, there are sources available to expand them (and reviews are counted as reliable sources in all video game articles, no exception should be made here), even if they are not currently in the articles. Wikipedia works on potential, not current state. However, if there is a consensus from discussion here to merge, then we can merge. But we do not work on the basis of ultimatums issued unilaterally. -- Sabre (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reviews aren't enough to prove notability. They're considered reliable sources to cite information from, but they don't prove notability especially in episodic content. I could find reviews for every single episode of a television season, doesn't mean every episode of a television season should have a wiki article and in fact, wiki guidelines specifically go against making an article for every episode of a television season. I think the same should be applied here. Unless the specific episodic game release was notable in it's own right (with sources besides reviews to prove it) they should only be mentioned in the main season article.24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, tell you what, I'm going to start up a proper merge discussion for these episode articles. I think you have raised some decent points, enough to move me towards the "indifferent" area. There's still work to do either way: if merged here, then individual episode reception and development needs to be expanded on here, whilst if not, the episode articles still need to be rewritten. -- Sabre (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sam & Max Save the World/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A couple of relatively small prose concerns:
    • The three, each with their own trademark catch-phrase, are victims of hypnosis in the first episode, make appearances as the judges on a Pop Idol parody and are elected the governors of the Dakotas in the fourth episode, before plunging the region into civil war over ownership of Mount Rushmore. → too long and too wordy. Recommend splitting into smaller sentences with a more concise rewrite.
    • There is quite a bit of passive voice in the Reception section. I have converted most of the passive voice in the other sections to active voice (including the Plot and Development sections) for you. Can you try to clean up the passive voice remaining in the Reception section?
    • [1] → No, the other direction! You need to change stuff such as The game interface itself was praised... to Several reviews praised the simplicity of the game interface. I'll revert that edit. The former is passive voice, while the latter is active voice. MuZemike 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whacks head on desk* Bah, humbug! I'll give it a fresh go tomorrow, now I'm clear what I'm looking for. After I've knocked myself unconscious against the wall in shame. I knew I was rubbish with prose quality, but not that rubbish! -- Sabre (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Non-free images all fall within WP:NFCC and have proper fair-use rationales. A couple could be reduced a bit further, but it's good as of right now.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placed on hold pending above improvements. MuZemike 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for future reference, please read User:MuZemike/GA standards for other things to watch for, especially when attempting to being this article to FA. MuZemike 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken up the sentence in the character section, so that should have hopefully dealt with that. I'll be giving the passive voice in the reception section a shot later, after I've attempted to get to grips with quite what it is. I don't have much of an eye for spotting that sort of thing. -- Sabre (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've had a stab at clearing up the passive voice, but as said above, I'm not too good with this sort of thing. I don't know whether I've actually dealt with it or made it worse (hopefully not the latter), but I've given it an attempt nonetheless. -- Sabre (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another go at it, at the very least I hope I'm going in the right direction this time, although I imagine I might have missed some. -- Sabre (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Take a look at the diff under criterion 1, and make a mental note of it for future reference in how to use active voice over the passive. Good job! MuZemike 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge episode articles

[edit]

Right, its worth getting this out for a proper discussion to establish a consensus. Should the episode articles be merged here? The major problem at present with these articles is that they're poorly written, consisting of trivia, over-the-top plot details and game guide material, all very poorly referenced. Should the articles be rewritten, there is going to be significant overlap, especially in the realms of gameplay content. It is going to be a substantial task trying to bring those articles up to scratch. Nevertheless, sources are available for episode reception, and to a more limited extent, development. The question is really what to do with that coverage. This article is currently written more in a way as a portal to the episode articles, with general information, but that can be rectified fairly simply and doing so will make this article more comprehensive. Do we stick with the current individual episode articles, and try to improve them, or do we incorporate that content with the available sources here, expanding the "design" and "reception" sections to include more specific episode coverage? Based on past discussions, whilst I was in favour of keeping and expanding the episode articles, I'm now feeling more inclined to merge. -- Sabre (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can get separate development and reception information for all the episodes (e.g. the Half-Life Episodes) then they should be merged. No use having their own articles if they're just extensions of the plot synopsis. The development section has to be significant, e.g. too large to fit in the main article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each episode was reviewed independently at the time of release (e.g. by GFW), but even so I would recommend that they share a reception section. Differences in development for each episode are likely to be trivial. I really doubt that so much can be said about one particular episode that we would really need separate articles for each. The GFW reviews, for example, were half-page articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the plot summaries of the last three episodes a few weeks ago. The whole time I worked on them, I was wondering why these articles were seperated, since the only significant difference between them seemed to be in the story. All that to say, I support a merge. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, there seems to be a consensus to merge on both this talk page and at WT:VG, so I'll go ahead with redirecting the articles. I'll get some extra paragraphs into the reception section to deal with critical reaction to the individual episodes in the coming week or so. I'm only doing this for the Season One episodes at present, if someone wants to merge the Season Two episodes, they are welcome to do so, but the main article isn't in a state ready for a merge yet. -- Sabre (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay on this, I've been a bit busy off-site in the last few weeks. I hope to have this completed soon, when I get a spare moment to properly sit down and deal with it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Finally found the time to do this: two paragraphs with the reception to individual episodes have been added. Now, I suppose I should start looking into adding a new paragraph to the end of the section to deal with the reception to the more recently released XBLA verson. I should be able to be a bit more active now than I have been in the last two months... -- Sabre (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Sam & Max Save the World. 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 21:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sam & Max Save the World. 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 06:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sam & Max Save the World. 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) 06:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_%26_Max_Save_the_World&oldid=1207451214"