Jump to content

Talk:Superman 64

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

Glitches

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZEo5Am5nE

This video clearly shows what appears to be a major glitch. Should the fact that the game was plagued by glitches be mentioned? Bugs were a major criticism of Superman 64.

Everything mentioned about the game needs to be backed up by a reliable third party source (a youtube video does not count). Find sources regarding glitches and expand accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Tone

[edit]

This article is simply a mass of opinions and fake reviews. Citing Seanbaby as a good review is simply incorrectly. The article mentioned is for the worst games, and like this entry, is clearly written in a satirical attitude. This article right now belongs more in Uncyclopedia than wikipedia. (At least Uncyclopedia is actually funny, sometimes.)

I agree, the article was apparantly only created to bash the video game instead of providing information for those interested in the game. Although it is true that most reviewers have considered it a terrible game I feel the article should be more focused on the actual game than the reviews it received. This article fails to mention the game's game play and graphics and the story behind its development. Keep in mind although it is not against the rules to provide information on the critical reception a video game receives it is discouraged by Wikipedia. This is a place for factual information given in a neutral tone, not harsh biased opinions given in a satirical one. And your comments on Uncyclopedia are irrelevant Eatspie (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Wrong, critical reception is a vital part of an video game article. Grandmasterka 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't mean the entire article (including game play and development sections) should be about Superman 64's negative reception, that doesn't mean every single sentence should refer to how repetitive the game is and make jokes at its poor quality. The reason this article is so poor is the fact a majority of the article's edits include irrelevant and poorly sourced information. K.H (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that critical reception is important, particularly when the article is about a game whcih is only notable for being widely considered as the worst the worst N64 game ever. But at the same time i don't think it's ok to have argumentative comments right in the middle of the article, i just removed a sentence saying "which conflicts with the immediately preceding sentence; which is it?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryisgood (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play the game, if you haven't done so and you will soon figure this is bottom of the barrel in video game history. But with that said I think this article can be constructed in naural manner if its polite in pointing out how bad this game is and how it should be advioded at al cost unless you want torture yourself. 157.157.149.246 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reports"

[edit]

This isn’t a report, it’s a list of user-submitted reviews. I would change “report” to “reviews” myself, but this article is protected for some reason. —Frungi 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the catagory Superman arcade and video games, I need Superman 64 to be incorporated.User:TMC1982

Flaming?

[edit]

This article seems to only have been created to point out how crappy it is. Can someone add a little more info other than what people thought of it? --Thaddius 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one can add anything since it's locked, not even the category suggested above. ~ Hibana 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right... maybe a request can be made to change\add a little more. --Thaddius 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's unprotected, I've moved the immediate panning from the intro to the Reception section and made stubs for the Story and Gameplay. Perhaps honorable editors will fill in the gaps to reduce the article's negative POV. ~ Hibana 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck, because I can't see how you can reduce the negative POV on this travesty of a game. Brown Bomber 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is one very poorly put together article. The article needs to describe how the game plays, not list complaints about it. All that opinionated stuff needs to go into the "Reception" section.
Though in the public view it was and is a terribly flawed game in all areas (As an example, 1up.com), most of the frustrations expressed by game reviewers and casual players alike regarded the gameplay. Complaints include the unresponsive controls, monotonous tasks such as flying through rings that the player must endure to progress through the game, a choppy and altogether uneven framerate, and the fog present in large areas presumably to even out the framerate.[citation needed]
What I love about that paragraph, aside from the fact that it's supposed to be the "gameplay" section, is the fact that it talks about how "most of the frustration came from the gameplay" and then goes on about framerates and draw distances. --Foot Dragoon 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan Nine?

[edit]

It also has little or no good reviews. (Unlike Plan 9 from Outerspace, the worst movie ever made that got reviews saying it was so bad it was good)[1]

That's a rather odd comparison -- too odd, inasmuch as it's irrelevant. I'm taking the liberty of removing the reference. The Dragon of Life 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Superman 64" title

[edit]

If the game is not actually titled "Superman 64", why the article named as such? Just64helpin 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Screen? Keiji Dragon (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other video games with the title "Superman" or "Superman: The Animated Series". This particular one was released on the Nintendo 64 and is the most notable Superman release for that platform. Compare "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" → "Zelda 64". 71.126.174.162 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest a rename for the official title, as per castlevania for the nintendo 64 92.3.208.112 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Yeah, we is the supermen. (Super-duper-supermen.) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Wikipedia's policy is to name articles by the common name, not the official name (if they are different). No one calls this game "Superman (1999 video game)". Whatever method you choose to discern the commonality of names, you will find Superman 64. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change

[edit]

There needs to be a line like this: "Superman 64 has achieved almost legendary status among gamers and prompts many to play the game just to experience how bad it really is." --68.207.156.253 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie[reply]

Once again, everything mentioned about the game needs to be backed up by a reliable third party source. Find sources that back this up and feel free to expand accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer

[edit]

The article states that there was a planned multiplayer, but I distinctly remember there being some sort of bumper-car-based multiplayer mode included in this game. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.70.103 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely was, and I remember it clearly, but I already know that other users around here will delete anything I add, claiming "original research" or some other nonsense, in spite of the fact that the source would be the game itself... --74.80.61.121 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:Verifiability is that people can verify the information is correct without purchasing/playing the game (or reading the book, seeing the film etcetera), that is why you cannot use the game itself as a source. That being said, the source that says multiplayer is planned is from an article that was released before the game was finished, accordingly it is not possible for that article to confirm that multiplayer actually was or was not in the game. I will add "multiplayer" to the infobox and change the information form that reference as I believe it is not helpful to anyone. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

It should be noted that support of the game was dropped midway, and therefore the game was released unfinished. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as always, just find a reference and then we can make changes accordingly. If there already is a reference that mentions that just point it out to me and I'll be happy to make the change myself. Freikorp (talk) 01:13, January 4, 2012‎ (UTC)

Nintendo Magazine System (Australia)

[edit]

Nintendo Magazine System (Australia) surprisingly awarded this game a score of 80% (page 33, issue 77). Just thought I should mention that if someone wants to add it to the article; I have the full review on scan. Freikorp (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added it myself. If anyone wants the scans just email me. I didn't believe this game could get a ranking that high until I read it myself. Freikorp (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved(non-admin closure) JC7V-talk 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Far and away the common name of the topic. Also removes the need for disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). JOEBRO64 20:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as suggested as by nominator. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Superman 64 is by far the common name for the game.--Alexandra IDVtalk 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. (Name is so COMMON that I previously though that was its actual name.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I, like Serge, also assumed this was the official name anyway... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can get behind this change. GamerPro64 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Generally I hesitate to use nicknames over official product names, but everyone and their mother calls this game Superman 64. It's also more recognizable than the current title, while lacking disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - If the move were to proceed, I can imagine readers asking why the title of the article is "Superman 64" when that name does not appear in the game cover. Personally I like the nickname "Superman 64" but to make such a move may cause a lot questioning from readers. Rattatast (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Like Rattatast said, it just doesn't make any objective sense. All the other votes here are basically citing Wikipedia lore, fandom, and personal feelings. "Everyone and their mother" don't even know this or any other particular subject exists, and we write an encyclopedia for the expectation that this is how they will find out. We write it for everyone and everything, objectively. Not just for ourselves, for each other, based on assumptions, or to make stuff up. It is disambiguated. This is the typical busywork of a solution in search of a problem. There is no problem until you create one. — Smuckola(talk) 22:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm leaning against this change myself. Yes, this change will fix the disambiguation issue but I think it's also going to create confusion from people who aren't gamers. Oh and for the record I always thought the actual title of this game was Superman 64 as well. When I first read this article and discovered that it wasn't I found that interesting (as opposed to confusing). I didn't see an issue that needed fixing. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What disambiguation issue? Nobody ever mentioned one. It sounds like everybody thinks the world is inside their bubble. :) And shouldn't you say "Object" since you just said you're against it? — Smuckola(talk) 03:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... read the second sentence from the nominator. The secondary reason for this move was that it "[a]lso removes the need for disambiguation". Should I have said 'the nominators concern regarding the need for disambiguation', instead of 'disambiguation issue'? I didn't think that much clarification was necessary as the connection seems obvious. And I said I was leaning against the nomination it. I guess you could reword that as a weak oppose if you are that concerned with putting labels on everything, but I really thought that was obvious from the context of my comments. I have nothing further to say at this discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mortal Kombat 2" has more google hits than "Mortal Kombat II" but "Mortal Kombat II" is used in the article. The ninth studio album of The Beatles is called "The Beatles", and we use "The Beatles (album)" in the page instead of its nickname "The White Album". Rattatast (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, @Rattatast:, but we're not discussing that here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although they may have a lot of hits and are even used by reliable sources, nicknames of games seem to be only familiar to the gaming public. Non-gamers and some casual gamers most probably refer to this game as simply "Superman." While I personally find "Superman 64" likable and would use it in conversations with game fans, I just not sure if we should use it as the title of the article page. Rattatast (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile your stance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME though? Especially since any necessary explanation for clarification can be given with a few extra words in the opening sentence. (See the opening sentence in something like Kid Rock - not his official name but his article title - for an example of how to word it.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Kid Rock's case, I think "Kid Rock" is best suited for that article's title, considering it's the singer's stage name. Also, that stage name appears in the covers of the singer's albums, thus people of all demographics best know the singer that way.
But as for the Superman video game played on the Nintendo 64, "Superman 64" is just an alternate name came up by fans. Also, I don't recall the game's presenters ever presenting the game that way. Rattatast (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve missed the point of virtually everything I said. I’m not saying we should change the name of this article because of how we’ve named Kid Rock’s article . Re-read what I wrote. I’m saying we could model this article’s opening sentence’s wording around the opening sentence in Kid Rock’s article - simply noting right away which name is official and which name is common. The rest of your response doesn’t really address COMMONNAME or OFFICIALNAME at all. Do you understand how to apply these concepts to naming articles on Wikipedia? Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rattatast:, please see WP:COMMONNAME: we don't necessarily have to use an official name. And like I said, the official title is Superman: The New Superman Adventures, not just Superman. It's reliable sources that use Superman 64, not just random "fans" on forums and blogs. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I knew that "64" isn't officially part of the game's title before I ever visited this article, and even so, I've always thought it odd that we have the article at this location. Contrary to what some of those opposed have said, the name "Superman 64" was not devised by fans; it saw widespread usage in reliable sources before the game was even released. The well-educated gamer may not have a problem with the article being located here, but to the average reader the current article title is undoubtedly a bit confusing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

----

Date format

[edit]

Since the game was developed and released by a European company but based on an American property, I'm not sure whether to format the dates the British way or the American way (Pun intended). Any thoughts? HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman_64&oldid=1205514084"