I haven't played this game in over two years (I don't even own it anymore), so someone else would probably have to take care of it. Other may do this as an encyclopedia, we cannot. It seems like internet users (both wikipedians and otherwise) tend to ignore the PC version and focus solely on the console versions. SpinyMcSpleen 17:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Reply Leebo T/ C 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Reply How about this: if the spoiler warnings are getting on your nerves, perhaps the entire plot section should be rewritten or deleted entirely. Any number of other sites that aren't encyclopedias can avoid the plot. If one doesn't wish to know about the subject, then avoiding the article is simple. One comes here to read a fully detailed and broad factual description of the subject, and critical plot details are going to be part of that. The final line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and spoiler warnings break up the encyclopedic tone of the article. SpinyMcSpleen 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Reply This has been discussed endlessly. TTN 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Reply If it were redundant, the spoiler tags would not exist. SpinyMcSpleen 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Reply Plot sections are expected to have spoilers, so it is redundant. I would put it in, myself, if I knew its code. There really ought to be a spoiler warning around the plot summary. The information in the article is more than enough, and the fact that there are other articles that should be merged/deleted is not a reason to keep this one. HanzoHattori 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Reply Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality. Soooo why the mergin'? You got plenty articles like this or this (I just clicked two very random). I think the section in this article is adequate nothing else needs to be merged. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Reply HanzoHattori has reinstated the original article, saying it wasn't merged. HanzoHattori 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Reply The article already seems to contain a sufficient description of the character. These should clarify the ratings conflict: Īccording to Metacritic's rating system all of the games (excluding the PC's) are "Generally Favorable". Characters stop their attack on you in mid action. The PC version lack the the driving missions, as well as having very minimal hand to hand combat options. A comparsion between the versions may be needed. TonicBH 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Reply Ĭorrect. The notice COULD be reinstated but to be clarified since the console versions DID get decent reviews. and I concur, the console versions are better than the PC version by far. People say the PC version made by Gearbox Software as an inferior version. but fans off course preffer games based in the films and not fictional-created by EA plot. Perhaps the author confused this game with Agent Under Fire or Rogue Agent? Anyways, I'm changing it unless someone can back it up. In fact, it received very good scores from most major game websites and magazines and is widely considered to be one of the best Bond games. This game was not released to universally bad reviews, as the article states. Bending Unit ( talk) 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit Reply It would be the best way considering this article should only contain info about the game and not those counter-parts. Why not just post the weapons as described in the instruction manual or something. Shouldn't the rest of the guns have their real life counterparts mentioned? I.E. The Storm is NOT based on the Uzi, but rather the Ruger MP9. Where did the weapons section go? Emperor001 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Reply Just so you know, the Wolfram PP7 was the Walther PPK, not P99, the Wolfram P2K is the P99. I suggest we move the weapons list to List of firearms in first-person shooters and find out the real names of the weapons mentioned. For example, "Wolfram PP7" instead of Walther P99.- LtNOWIS 02:23, (UTC) I think they modified the names of real weapons to avoid copyrights. I searched a few of the weapons on Google, and only came up with results for this game.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |