Talk:Star Control 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleStar Control 3 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2020Good article nomineeListed
August 30, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 30, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that to guide the direction of Star Control 3, Legend Entertainment compiled a "bible" based on the series, and consulted its original creators Fred Ford and Paul Reiche?
Current status: Featured article

Untitled

The statement that "many fans and the authors of SC/SC2" consider SC3 non-canon is baseless. The cited link points to an interview with Paul Reiche III in which he poses the purely hypothetical idea of another Star Control game, saying that in order to create a sequel to SC2 some of the things done in SC3 would need to be "undone". What he meant by that is only speculation. A new game could be set in an alternate universe or events could unfold that manipulate the established timeline or maybe happen in the timeframe between SC2 and SC3. Just because someone doesn't like SC3 (I didn't care for it much either), doesn't mean it's acceptable to conclude that it is considered non-canon. Nowhere in the interview was that stated or even hinted at. The statement about "undoing things" is purely hypothetical and vague at best. Would you immediately assume any game that receives a sentiment of the slightest regret is automatically considered non-canon by its author?

If you don't like that explanation, take a different view of it. Atari OWNS Star Control and only 3 official Star Control games exist. In order for Toys for Bob to create another game in the series, they would first have to procure the rights from Atari, then they would have to develop a game. Since none of that has happened, lets leave this as-is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.71.0 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. Atari only owns the Star Control title as a trademark, but Toys for Bob retained the rights to the universe, races, ship names etc. This in fact allowed TfB to release the source code of Star Control 2 under the GPL license at 2002, prompting the fan community to launch the Ur Quan Masters fan project which is a working Windows port of Star Control 2. To release a sequel, the only thing TfB needs is a budget. If you wish, you can browse the UQM project site and read the fan petition sent to developers. Michagorov (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Log of IRC chat session with Fred Ford, Paul Reiche III on #uqm-tfb on freenode, 2007-06-13, 13:30 PDT: "I think you will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC." implying that SC3 will be retconned. There are other quotes here. There's a couple orders of magnitude more quotes on the "non-canonicity" by the fans on the net even if you dispute the author's opinion expressed in a number of occasions. GhePeU (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Removed shameless link to commercial site. 217.233.186.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Canon

The issue of Star Control 3 being non-canon is widely discussed by the surviving fan community of this game. I think that by this day and time there is already enough documented evidence produced by the active fan community, first and foremost the Ultronomicon fan site, to safely deduce the true feelings of the Star Control franchise fans about this game. Michagorov (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Star Control 3/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for getting this started. I would be happy to work hard if need be, as much as it takes to reach GA. Also, there is a backlog of GA nominations at the Video Games WikiProject, and I'd like to learn from this process as much as possible, so that I can help with some of the backlog. I don't check WP every single day, so be patient if it takes 2-3 days to check back in. I'll do my best to reply quicker. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

  • I noticed subjective statements of strengthened detail, and checked the source attached in the body. At a glance, Kalata does not appear to be making that claim. Can you point out what portion of the article you are citing for that claim?
  • Let me dive in. That's my summary of a paragraph where Kalata says, "The rotation of the ships are much smoother, offering many more degrees over the 16 steps of Star Control II, and the scaling is much smoother than the 3DO version." Didn't mean for that to sound so subjective, as it's definitely a quantifiable jump. Star Control 1 and 2 were from 1990 and only had 16 discrete steps to aim / steer, even when they ported SC2 to 3DO. I'm about to shut down for the night, but I'll stay on top of this stuff as we go. Happy to rewrite or phrase things closer to the source's language. Just let me know what you'd like to see. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people are mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article, and are unsourced. Feature these people in the article with sources or remove (Capelli, Riley, Frazier, Dahlgren, Poesch, Tyler). Also, remove the J. from Lindner's name in infobox.
    • I went ahead and found a statement about Poesch that I could add to the article. But the others I can only source to the credits in the manual. I'm hesitant to remove credit to hardworking people, and those credits technically could be verified with citations to the manual in the infobox. But I trust your understanding of guidelines. I just want to double check that you really think it's best I remove them. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly appreciate that desire, though from my understanding, we can only list people who worked on it if reliable secondary sources deem them notable figures by bringing up their contributions. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went ahead and removed them, as suggested. I respect your understanding of the guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • The player can manage > The player managed
  • "Overall, colony management is simpler than other strategy games of the time,[4] mainly offering a convenient way to refuel without returning to a central star base." This is an opinion, even if it's sourced, and thus shouldn't be included.

Plot

  • Inconsistent tone in the plot; sometimes, the article talks about the Captain's actions, other times it talks about the player's actions. It should focus on the former since this is story.
  • Consider trimming the Plot section down to be more concise and focused.
  • Changed those terms, and gave it a slight rewrite for clarity. Let me know if it's moving in the right direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • "would lead the game design" > "lead the game design"
  • "would be written by" > "was written by"
  • "would be lead by" > "was lead by"
  • Who is arguing the quality of Legend Entertainment's writers?
  • Unlink Mike Verdu
  • Is State of the Art a company? If so, unitalicize.
  • "The final game seemed to repeat the same animations in most situations" - according to whom?
  • Who determined the professionalized nature of 3 vs. 2?
  • I think a good approach would be to have quality, professionalization, and what it seemed to have done redone to be a little more neutrally.
  • Done. Focused on more factual statements, like the writers being veterans from Infocom, and the voice actors being professionals instead of friends. Also removed the conflicting statements about whether the developers achieved their goals of dynamic animations. I'll be off an on over the next few days to continue editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Indicate who or what demonstrated the success of Star Control 3.
  • Is there any data on later SC3 sales?
  • "At the time its release" > "At the time of its release"
  • Should it be mentioned that comparisons were made between the two in this context? Comparison doesn't necessarily mean that it would get poor reviews.
  • Critical acclaim of SC2 is also not cited in that section, I'd advise cutting it.
  • The Reception section has major issues with quoting. I absolutely advise that you cut down on quotations significantly and instead summarize what the reviewers are communicating.
  • Is there an aggregate page for the Macintosh version of the game?
  • Metacritic score should have the citation in the table.

Legacy

  • Cut down on quotations.

References

  • Make sure that you are consistent with reference formatting.

Misc

  • Make sure to be consistent about "quotations". and "quotations."
  • I went ahead and addressed the reception/legacy as best I could. Let me know if I missed any inconsistencies in the references or quotations. Tried to cut down quotations, while still preserving the most important ones. Unfortunately, in all my research, I couldn't find any final sales data for the game. It faded into relative obscurity compared to the second game. But I think we are very close. Let me know if there's any lingering issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Passed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vincent60030 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Shooterwalker (talk). Self-nominated at 23:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • If you nominate Star Control 3 for DYK, the article needs to be included in the hook (the main hook does not contain it) and the relevant hook text needs bold font and wikilinked. Schwede66 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first hook is also too long and is thus unsuitable: it needs to be less than 200 characters.
csdnew 12:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • GA icon received within 7 days of nomination. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Images are fair use (2) and freely licensed (1). No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
  • The "bible" idea is good but the hook has no active verbs, just gerunds. Would you consider writing the hook this way:
  • ALT2: ... that to guide the development of Star Control 3, Legend Entertainment created a "bible" based on the series' manuals and scripts, with corrections and additions from fans? Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing and I'd be good with that one. I think a big hook for gamers and fans is the second game, and the influence of the original creators. So I think it might be stronger if we tried this:
  • ALT3: ... that to guide the direction of Star Control 3, Legend Entertainment compiled a "bible" based on the series, and consulted its original creators Fred Ford and Paul Reiche? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's very good. ALT3 hook refs verified and cited inline. ALT3 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exciting. Thanks for your help and keep me posted about the next steps. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    T:DYKQ to watch it progress through the preps and queues, until it hits the main page. And nominate another article for DYK! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Good articles

This was nice to read and really took me back. I am surprised this is a good article before the first two games in the series. I hope people keep working on those! Jorahm (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

207.229.139.154 (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/the-duelist-17/page/n95/mode/2up
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Control_3&oldid=1199735993"