Talk:Firearms (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Commentary

I think that the last 2.5 paragraphs are a bit out of place and prejudiced. ah but soooo true.

I was just about to add something about a controversy. Y'see, everything is pretty much explained on the front page of this site: http://www.firearmsmod.com/ But after seeing you say something about a (now nonexistant) prejudiced few paragraphs I'm not sure whether I should add it. For the most part pretty much everyone knows that Firearms 2 is a mod team that hasn't done anything themselves. They're like the ebaumsworld of mods. I'm gonna look through this article's history, and see what those paragraphs were about. --71.248.190.119 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the front page has come full circle considering the previous edits, but the controversy was discussed briefly in those 2.5 "prejudiced" paragraphs that are now gone. The front page of firearmsmod.com has simply rekindled the dying fire and offers little in the sense of new points or conversation to make. The frontpage is for the most part a vain and helpless beacon to forsake the Firearms 2 mod placed by the leaders of World at War, as nothing in the scene has changed save for the introduction of their own Firearms:Source modification.

Rather then retort with similar rhetoric I'm simply going to strike the offending portion from the game's summary. The topic in question is an interesting one for those of us majoring in e-Political and Behavioral Analysis, though for the rest of us it's just a sad footnote in the coffin of a troubled Half Life 1 mod whose community has sought out to make good on its roots in not one, not two, not even three, but four different modifications. I think that is a fair summary without harming nor acrediting either camp. --Natrapsmai 12:49, 29 September 2006

Rewrite

This article is in a serious mess. I'm kinda busy right now, but I think I should gather up a few old-school FA vets and team members and see if we can do a complete rewrite Modest Genius ^talk 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

believe me, I've tried modest. The FA2 types just keep vandalizing it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

well, there's no need to completely remove the link to it... Modest Genius ^talk 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure is: This is the Firearms 1 game page, not the firearms2 mod page. It's just spam, and advertisement for them. If they want to advertise they can make their own wikipedia page for their own mod.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote it, please tell me what you think. I think i already see some flaws :S LSky —Preceding comment was added at 14:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I never really got anywhere with this, but have just merged in the (little) content that I managed on the draft User:Modest Genius/Firearms. In 2007 I made a note of the references below but the links all seem to have died. I'm listing them here in the hope that someone will be able to recover them (e.g. from the Wayback Machine) for use in the article. Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• [1] 2.6 review
• [2] 2.5 review
• [3] 2.4 review
• [4] 1.0 review
• [5] interview with Eric, mentions Quake beginnings
• [6] contents of CS retail disc
• [7] 2.0 release
• [8] player number data

Neutrality

I think it's pretty clear that this article is completely biassed. Wikipedia is not some sort of platform where you can show people that it supports your side of the story, just because you edited the article like that. The controversy part either needs to be removed, or both (or more) sides of the story need to have a spot in the article. LSky 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There already are 2 sides. One side made a mod for fun and the other side stole it. That simple. 65.24.55.197 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this whole thing is completely biassed, and one individual seems to think it is their own private preserve. All attempts to show a more balanced view have been blocked. --Sinistral 06:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a controversy about this matter ( that's why it's called that way) and all sides should have a fair chance to be in this article, displayed as sides, not as facts. So please somebody tell me why this is not a dispute, because the tag keeps getting removed. LSky (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the information is quoted and sourced. You simply can't dispute that, you can always go and check that by clicking on the link in the ref. Whether you like it or not doesn't make it POV, it never has and never will. That's just the way it goes. There is no controversy about the sourced material. You can't hide it just because you don't like it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am an impartial observer in this fight. I represent neither side. However, this article is poorly written and also biased. Examples:
"Later versions, (RC) 2.6 through (RC) 3.0 were developed under the direction of Ben Irwin." Where is the source for this?
"As aforementioned above, the FA team is in development of FA:source: however what is not so well known is the truth behind FA:source." Where is the source for this? Is the entire original team behind FA:source? Or just a few members? I thought the FA team were busy with a new mod?
"FA:Source is in development under the name of "Firearms Source" because of the wrongdoing of another mod being called firearms 2." I Googled this, and it appears that Firearms 2 was actually started AFTER FA:source. Was FA:source forced to change its name?
"Firearms 2 however is not the official follow up to Firearms 3.0, but rather is the spawn of "cyber-crooks" as it were." The phrase "cyber-crooks" does not belong in Wikipedia. Also, where is the proof that FA:2 stole anything? At the very least this is poorly cited; at the most it is completely biased.
"it is well known among the FA 3.0 community that the FA team had their content hi-jacked by a group of disgruntled FA fans who then went on to "develope" the Falsified FA 2." "it is well known" are weasle words. Where is the proof or citations to state that a theft took place? You can't say that "it is well known" and use that as proof. I could say "it is well known" that Barack Obama is an alien, for instance.
"FA2 is not the creation of the official FA team but is instead the what might be called mooching." Who would call it mooching? Has it been called mooching in a citable source? You can't just say things like this without backing them up!
"This theft of intellectual content dealt a devastating blow the REAL FA team and to this day stings their behinds." Regardless of the fact that this is one of the whiniest sentences I have ever read, the phrase "stings their behinds" has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.
"Though the incident was swept under the rug by most, several people of the FA community still feel this was an outrage." Who has swept this under the rug? Who considers this an outrage? On the FA:source ModDB page (http://www.moddb.com/mods/firearmssource), there is the following statement: "Please Note: I've deleted several comments from our profile from people who have mistaken us for a different Source engine mod." Is this what the author means about "sweeping under the rug?" Because that statement came from FA:source, surely the last people who want this alleged incident ignored?
In conclusion, I think that the aforementioned parts of this article are poorly cited, poorly written, and biased. I would theorise that these comments were written as vandalism by members or sympathisers of the FA:source team. I recommend that this article be locked, and that coverage of the controversy is either removed, or rewritten so that both sides of the story are represented, with proper citations.
Otherwise, this Internet b*tch fight has no place on Wikipedia. 194.81.254.146 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FA2 related project?

Is FireArms2 a project related to FireArms? Wikipedia editor ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! claims this project is seperate and unrelated to FireArms. I don't see how anyone can arrive at this conclusion. The FireArms2 website states on several occasions that they want to recreate FireArms for Half Life 2, examples can be read here and here. However, ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! continues to delete the references to this website and keeps undoing any attempts to make the Firearms_(computer_game)#Controversy more neutral. Any comments?

User:Swatjester is correct in saying it's a separate project, but I don't see how he can claim it's unrelated. Since this page is about Firearms we usually only include link to website directly related to the subject. My suggestion is to create a new page for Firearms2 and add a link in the See Also section. Calibas (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Firearms2 may not have any of the original developers, but it seems perfectly reasonable to include mention of Firearms2 on this page. Entries on a subject will often include "spiritual successors" or other works that it inspired. The same goes for "remakes", which seems to be the best analogue here - the Firearms2 team is hoping to "remake" the mod. Of course, any controversy about the appropriation of the name, conflicts between development teams, etc. should also be noted. Orphic (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firearms2 is a competely different mod. It's unrelated, built off the same engine, and has none of the original developers. Therefore it has no use being included on this page. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just simply untrue, there are several people on the FA2 team that worked on FA1 as well. The game is NOT built off the same engine either. FA2 is for the Source engine, not the Goldsource engine on which FA1 is built. Please quit spreading lies. Furthermore, none of your arguements mentioned above support your statement that FA2 is a completely different mod. As stated by the FA2 team, they intend to recreate FireArms for Half Life 2. That alone makes the mod related to FA1, period. Of course it's not the exact same mod, but that same counts for World at War and FireArms:Source. They're not the exact same modification either. Now the issue that the "original FA team" is creating these 2 mods (one of which is no longer in development according to their own website) does not make them any more relevant then FireArms2, especially because the claims (read about it on firearmsmod.com together with all the defamation against FA2 there) are not facts but opinions. Either leave all out of the article, or include all of them. LSky (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lsky, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. But accusing people of "spreading lies" is an example of bad faith. Please stop it. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. As for removing the POV part, if it's referenced, that doesn't mean it's factually correct. firearmsmod.com is a billboard for slander and defamation, it only shows one side of the story, neutrality looks at all sides of the story. LSky (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require the information to be factually correct, it just needs to be verifiable. You obviously have a bone to pick with the firearmsmod.com team. However, they are the legitimate source of information for this article. If you want to make an article for FA2 go do it, but this is not the place for you to spam for it, and your disruption of the FA article needs to stop immediately. Keep it off of this article. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other legitimate sources where information can be gotten from, however, certain people keep editing away any information from sources other then this single one. Again, neutrality doesn't mean viewing only one source. Please quit removing POV tag as well. The dispute is NOT resolved. I'm not spamming here for FA2, people are expanding their campaign of defamation to wikipedia and that's not what it's for. It's for neutral articles, so until this dispute is properly resolved, the tag will remain right where it is at. LSky (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not dispute. You're the only one manufacturing one. Just because you hate the fact that it's referenced, you cannot simply add the POV sign to try and discredit it. It's the best source possible. Your repeated use of the phrase "campaign of defamation" is a clear sign that you have ill intent, and because of your clear statement that you will continue to edit war, I'm blocking you if you actually do so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a dispute, please personally attack me, discredit me, and show ill intent by accusing me of manufacturing a dispute. You can clearly read on this talk page that not everyone agrees with your point of view and how that part of the article is written. The part is even called controversy. Wikipedia clearly states that all sides of the story should be put in as such, not as facts. LSky (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No actually it does not state that, WP:NPOV states otherwise. Yes the part is called controversy, but the content of that paragraph is 100% accurate: It's sourced, and you can check the source it's still good. You can't tag it as POV just because you don't like it or you don't agree. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then show me the part where it says that ONLY the information YOU judge as official is to be put up here? You keep removing people's additions even though they can be sourced just as well as what you put up there, yet you regard yourself as the person who can judge which source is to be referenced and which not. LSky (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to ask you wikipedia writers, is it possible for you to list all maps from firearms mod for original 3.0 mod to the article?

Controversial End and Successors

Added the controversial end and successors section again. References site both sides of the argument from the parties own representatives and would site more on the FA2 side but their sites are now debunked. This controversy is an important part of the history of Firearms. -- Shraka (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the arguments are important. Can any of this be verified with reliable, independent sources? Furthermore, I'm having trouble comprehending the first paragraph of this new section - It doesn't seem to match the lead paragraph, since the leader paragraph mentions neither Firearms 2 or Firearms "Revival". Drop the drama stuff about hacking and stuff since it's not verifiable, and add any relevant details into the lead paragraph is my suggestion. Eik Corell (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability, in the 'Sources' > 'Questionable Sources' section: "Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". This would appear to allow the section on the contentious end to FA. As you haven't actually sighted any specific rule I'm going to assume you're referring to the next paragraph: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". The claims posted on the wikipedia firearms article are not disputed by the Firearms 2 dev team, and only clarity on their motivations for taking this action were ever presented (which I have presented in the article). While the title of the section might be 'controversial end...' the only controversy is over whether or not the FA2 team did the right thing, not about what actually happened as it's described in the wiki article. I'll try to clean it up a bit to make it more clear though. -- Shraka (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)