Talk:Total Overdose

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

Came upon this page by accident but this page is certainly not objective and needs to conirm to a highly standard of quality expected from Wikipedia

Cleaned up most of the problems --Smilingman 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are sections listing all the weapons and vehicles in the game, but there's no section about what the gameplay is like. Those lists shouldn't be in wikipedia, but in gamefaqs or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.199.162 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird comments

Someone get rid of the weird comments such as 'fun!'--EVILcow71.145.151.179 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Or is that what really happened? Play the game to find out!" ... and other non-encyclopedic comments should be changed. I would change these elements if I knew more about the game to do so. 71.110.13.166 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I just had to restrain myself from creating a "Critical reaction" section that said "While Game Informer described this game as "plagued by technical defects in almost every way that a game could be", this is bullshit, and strongly suggests that Game Informer's reviewers either do no actually play the games that they review, or write positive reviews only when paid to do so." 74.137.105.169 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article reads like a combination between a promotional piece and a semiformal conversation. It probably needs to be edited; the article itself seems like it was written more by an overly-enthused fan than an objective writer. HaikenEdge (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as an article with good information but bad presentation. Bizznot 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]