Jump to content

Talk:Flashback (1992 video game)

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

Duplicate articles

[edit]

There are two articles about this game, namely Flashback: The Quest for Identity and Flashback (computer game)...They need to be merged and one needs to be deleted. S Sepp 14:05, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I pasted together the two articles about Flashback. Feel free to improve the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somos (talk • contribs) 00:25, November 23, 2004 (UTC)
This article should probably just be under Flashback (computer game) without "The Quest For Identity". I have the original French PC floppy disk release and it is simply called "Flashback". Sometime later, the foreign releases were re-branded as "The Quest For Identity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwren (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 March 2007

Copy editing

[edit]

I have done large-scale copyediting. I have not added or removed any content. EDIT: I also removed stub status. S Sepp 21:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

I don't think the external link to mobygames should be present. It is a commercial website which is not NPOV, and does not add much to the article. I have read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally and have decided to remove the link. S Sepp 21:09, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

But isn't the external link there for people who want more detailed information about the game, such as platforms, developers, screenshots, etc, from a site that specializes in video games (MobyGames), as opposed to Wikipedia, which is not? Don't most game articles link to MobyGames, in a way similar to IMDb linking on movie articles? Another World also links to MobyGames.. Linking to MobyGames looks like the right thing to do, in my opinion. Wasn't there some debate about this in Wikipedia in the past, with some reasonable conclusions?
Also, I think, inconsistency is another thing to consider.. shouldn't there be a standard for MobyGames linking for games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somos (talk • contribs) 15:56, November 28, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong. Many articles about games link there, and I didn't really know what kind of site it was. I looked for the discussion you referred but couldn't find it...Do you know where it was? I have re-added the Mobygames link. S Sepp 21:37, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Table

[edit]

Is there a reason why game details are presented in a table rather than a game infobox? --jet57 (u∴t) 10:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 09:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reminescence site

[edit]

On the Reminescence site there seems to be no reference to Nintendo DS nor PSP ports, where does that information come from? --GozzoMan 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Platforms

[edit]

I do believe there was a RISC-OS version of this game released, can anyone please confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.19.128 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 31 August 2006

Flashback Legends

[edit]

I'll volunteer to add a section about Flashback Legends - with links from Delphine and Adeline pages - but will need someone to improve the language and edit that section, since I know next to nothing about Wiki editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.105.170.105 (talk • contribs) 14:38, January 6, 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Editing help" link next to the Save/Preview/Changes button. Use the preview, or try some edits in Wikipedia:Sandbox. The biggest thing you need to know is [[internal link]] [http://www.example.com External link with this text as a caption]. Hopefully you'll like the (small) learning cuve! (If you're going to contribute to other articles, an account might be in order too..) --GargoyleMT 14:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the inspiration of the storyline ever mentioned anywhere? It seems like a nice merger of Total Recall and They Live. 115.64.93.18 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flashback menu Amiga.png

[edit]

Image:Flashback menu Amiga.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Rotoscoping animation in Flashback

[edit]

Hi,

I used to work at Delphine Software when we produced Flashback. The animation technique for this one, if I remember well was not rotoscoping but Motion Capture. Rotoscoping, a frame by frame animation technique was created by Disney for their cartoons and used on another Delphine title: Another World. On Flashback, we have used a MoCap system we have bought in Italy. It was brand new at this time, and so expensive. I hope this detail will be corrected in this very precise article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.28.36 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know - I'd never noticed that. The article contradicts itself: In the lede it states that it was rotoscoped, yet in the "Comparisons to Another World" it states that it was not. I shall rewrite forthwith. a_man_alone (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very belated response, but you misread the article; looking back at the May 2011 version, the "Comparisons to Another World" section clearly stated that the game uses rotoscoped animation. So, no self-contradiction. More to the point, this is one heck of a claim, given that reliable sources overwhelmingly state that the first video game to use motion capture was Virtua Fighter 2, which came out two years after Flashback. I suspect that the IP address editor above is confusing Flashback with its sequel, Fade to Black, which is established to have used motion capture.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flashback Origins

[edit]

I'm reinstating File:Flashback HD anonymous 2013 image Gameblog.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was removed as part of an edit with no summary. Its inclusion is valid encyclopedic content within this article. -- Trevj (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible fanart for unconfirmed rumors is "valid encyclopedic content" now? --Niemti (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I agree with Neimti. It's an unconfirmed screenshot, and a WP:RUMOR. It also has little encyclopedic value as in the end "first screenshot" isn't a valid reason to pass WP:NFCC, and better screenshots will likely come along. In the article we're also given credit to a source that hasn't been proven as reliable, which also invalidates things. Even DigitalSpy said the picture "appears to be" a screenshot. That just doesn't fly. --Teancum (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I note that little encyclopedic value isn't the same as no encyclopedic value. It seems valid to me. Obviously the screenshot itself isn't notable, but it seems worthy of note in this article. Are there any concerns other than NFCC#5? -- Trevj (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From both a NFC policy and NOR policy, if its just a postulated screenshot but without any confirmation of who made it, it's extraneous and may not be included. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also to clarify my above, it fails #8, and as Masem mention it also fails #10, making three total strikes. --Teancum (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm assuming that WP:RUMOR is referring to WP:SPECULATION: the addition is not to a standalone article entitled Flashback Origins, but has been included as relevant content within an existing article. If this information is really deemed not relevant, then we should also be discussing the prose addition within #Sequel.
  2. If the image fails #8 (and/or #10) then it should be CSD'd under one of those criteria, rather than the easily created scenario of orphaned fair use.
  3. Other than that, how about taking the image to WP:FFD?
I can see that my views aren't supported by current consensus and don't feel strongly enough about this to reinclude the image myself again now. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. Independently notable of the original game, and therefore eligible for a separate article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czar (talk · contribs) renamed this to the 1992 game and then created one for the 2013 HD remake (Flashback 2013 video game). However, as I understand it, it is just an HD improved game with little else being done to change it, particularly since the same team is developing it. As such, there's little else to say on the gameplay, plot, and development, and thus we typically do not spin out HD remakes until they are shown to be notable. As such, I propose merging that back into here, and if so, moving this back to Flashback (video game). --MASEM (t) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started the separate article only because I found the two games materially different, similar to Halo: Combat Evolved and Anniversary. The 2013 game isn't a simple "HD" remake/update, as it includes altered mechanics in the "spirit" of the original—the game will be judged apart from its predecessor, with ample citations for a full, separate article. If this turns out to not be the case, I would not be opposed to a merge at that time, but for now I see ample reason and precedent to separate the two. czar · · 01:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with czar. Remakes of video games typically have their own articles separate from the original. As with the first Halo game, Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider: Anniversary are split. This standard should apply to Flashback as well. ComfyKem (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really true. Some remakes will merit a new article but most that I know of don't - particularly when there is no major gameplay updates or the like. The exceptions are generally those that get retail editions - though not always (eg we don't have separate articles for the Ico and Shadow of the Colossus updates). There may be more coverage and a split could be possible, but given what I know for games like Flashback - which are from the early days of video games but not the prime - it likely won't as its more a curiosity than a novel thing. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that bit on ico/shadow - we do apparently. Still, we normally wait on HD releases until there's more to write that can't be fix into the main article. I don't see that being the case here for Flashback at this time. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even know what you talk about. It wasn't even a 3D graphics game to just up the resolution (like with ICO[1], or Another World anniversary editions for that matter), it's going to be remade completely.[2] Think Mortal Kombat 1992 and Mortal Kombat 2011. --Niemti (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Karateke HD was a complete overall (2d to 3d, revamped gameplay,etc.) but the best I can support it in sources is a section on the main Karateka. Again, it has been the past wisdom at WP:VG that remakes - at least on announcement - should not suddenly get stand alone pages. They may merit in the future, but that's a CRYSTALBALL aspect until we know what sources are there. (See WP:VG/GL's section on remakes) --MASEM (t) 19:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even click my link? --Niemti (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that doesn't suggest we're going to have a lot more information to necessitate a separate article. It might, it might not. Which is why we generally don't split remakes (even full blown ones) until we know for sure. Right now, there's hardly anything about the 1992 game outside of story/gameplay, and all that can be said about the 2013 can easily be added without getting close to SIZE problems. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe I've shown sufficient evidence of the remake's independent notability through sourcing as a separate entity from the original. There's more evidence that the game is not a simple HD updating than otherwise. Again, I'm happy to revisit this topic in the future if the trade winds change. czar · · 18:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much notable - in fact I would agree the HD remake is independently notable of the original game. But we do not need to make a new article for every notable topic, particularly if there is a large overlap of information between the two topics. (Same with most of the other remakes - I can easily argue their notability without a problem but it is the comprehensive of the combination of both the original and HD remake whether it is better in one article or two. ) --MASEM (t) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "the HD remake", it's a complete remake and a reboot. Like Mortal Kombat 2011, or Wolfenstein 2009. You still don't know what you talk about. --Niemti (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remake, yes, but not a reboot - at least in the sense of those other games. The sources I'm reading say that they'll expand on the original story but not otherwise change it , and they are adding features that they couldn't do in '93. A reboot is an entirely different thing but that's not what this is. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a reboot. Why won't you actually click my link, instead of pretending you did? It's a proper reboot like Enemy Unknown 2012, and not a completely new game with the same title like Syndicate 2012 (which wasn't even an RTT anymore). --Niemti (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While that video says reboot, most of the sources from both Apr + E3 rather use the word remake, reflecting that the story and core gameplay will be the same, but the game will be upgraded from 2D to 3D and will include new mechanics. That, effectively, is not a reboot. (And again, the same bulk changes were made to Karateka, that would suggest it was a reboot by the video definition but most called it a remake. It is still too little information at this time to determine if the remake or reboot is best covered in its own article, and that's why a merge now makes sense until more about how much has changed is revealed. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Core gameplay"? Lol. It was running and jumping and firing a pistol. There were no other weapons, skills, upgrades, vehicles, etc etc. --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flashback (1992 video game). 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) 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flashback_(1992_video_game)&oldid=1222395201"