Talk:Gorf

Typical Wikipedia

Hey, I worked damned hard on that GameBoy Advance conversion of GORF, and I don't appreciate its deletion from this page. It may not have been officially licensed from Midway, but the arcade game's existence was legally questionable thanks to all the content it borrowed from Space Invaders and Galaxian. If that's going to be your criteria for removing entries you might as well take the whole page down. You guys talk a big game about being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but that slogan is meaningless when tight-sphinctered admins can swoop in and change everything back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Neko (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia is hosting a page for an unlicensed My Little Pony game, either blissfully unaware of the double standard or totally unconcerned by it. There's no way to defend this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.130.139.63 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a problem with that article, please go there and fix it or propose it for deletion if you think it isn't notable enough for and article. However, "licensing" is not what defines something as being important enough to include in an article; generally, it has to do with coverage in independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The GameBoy Advance and the Atari Jaguar ports of GORF are the best ones. They most certainly should be on the page. Can we please make sure they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.176.11 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not they are "the best" versions, you'll need reliable (see WP:RS) and third party sources to back up their notability. I'll scan through the sources to see what is said and who they are, but they may be removed if they are not valid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why it is wrong to include the "Games" after "Midway" for games released before 1988

Although it might be preferable to link directly to an article instead of doing it through a redirect, the use of the word "Games" after "Midway" for games that were released by Midway before 1988 is misleading the public. The reason for that is that when WMS purchased the original Midway from Bally, it merged Midway to Williams Electronics. Right after this merger took place, WMS then legally created the current Midway as a new entity and Delaware Corporation. As a result many employees that were employed at the original Midway are now employed at Williams while many employees that were employed at Williams prior to the acquisition are now with Midway. Therefore the Midway before the WMS acquisition and the Midway after, can not really be considered as the same company. On the other hand if Midway's corporate name would have always been "Midway Games", then the use of the word "Games" after "Midway" could have been appropriate even if the company itself isn't the same but because the company's name was actually "Midway Manufacturing Company" until 1996, that just gives another reason why the use of "Midway Games" shouldn't not be employed on this article.

To make it a short story, it is better to simply refer to the publisher of this game as "Midway" because neither the corporate name or the company itself is the same as the actual "Midway Games" company. Midway Games itself never makes any reference to the years before 1988 on its corporate history (although they own the game library of the old Midway).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.19.65 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 December 2005

I've reformatted the Midway term. Midway changed its name a few times in its history. To be specific, Gorf was not distributed by Midway, it was done by the company under another name. Feels more respectful to the history of the company to use the name they were using at the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Forth and Ms. Gorf

I disagree that the reason why Ms Gorth can't be compiled is because FORTH is obscure. Versions of FORTH exist for all architectures including the most modern. It's no more "obscure" than C. If it really can't be compiled, then something is wrong with the code. -- Jonathan Badger 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dug up the reference for that statement, and it doesn't say anything about it not being compilable. It's just on 8" disks, which make it hard to retreive (when was the last time you saw even a 5¼" drive??). So I removed the statement that it can't be compiled. It can't be compiled because it can't be retreived (so, the sentence was technically true, but very misleading).

I do agree that FORTH is obscure, however. Though versions do exist for most modern operating systems, it's not incredibly widely used (it doesn't even approach the use of C or C++). Versions of Fortran also exist for modern operating systems, but that doesn't make it a modern programming language. Also, that sourced reference also says it's obscure, so it could be argued that the paragraph is just expressing what the source says.

Another first: Multi-mission game

AFAIK, Gorf was the first multi-mission game, but the article does not list this among its firsts. Was there another before it? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. What other video games use various missions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ports

This game was also ported to the BBC and Acorn Electron, the Galaxian mission was present on them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.178.110 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 January 2007

Frog spelt backwards

Does it need to be included that Gorf is frog spelt backwards? I'm going to delete it.Pengwiin 11:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

I am in the process of doing some major expansion of the article. I've expanded the production section and removed the overt listing of quotes from the game. We aren't wikiquote, and we are WP:NOTACATALOG. I've tried to tidy up some of the sources as trying to look at them bundled into an infobox of reviews does not make for clear editing. I've removed some sources that cited arcade-history.com and replaced them with published sources with credited authors. I've tagged a few other sources that should/could be replaced. I've removed the Tilt and the German magazine review from the game infobox. Not because they were bad, but because they did not have overall scores. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we do not round up review scores as the magazine never presented them this way. I've added them as suggested links to expand the article with. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Music video appearance

I've removed the mention of the arcade machine appearing in the music video that's been removed and re-added a few times. Per WP:PSTS per "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." I feel as there is no discussion of the appearance of the game or how it relates to Gorf in terms of popularity, or vice-versa with why the band included the game in the video, its a trivial appearance at best, and citing the video itself instead of a third-party discussing it in some sort of context, doesn't give anyone any details other than "it shows up". I would look at an article like [[|Barbarella (film)|Barbarella]] and its legacy/popular culture see what I mean. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)