Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition

Finished

Okay, finished the basic stuff for the page. Whew. JAF1970 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Brjason 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just about finished, but what are sparks?

Okay, I just about finished the page (with 2 contributions from SeanMooney), but what the heck are sparks and how do you get them? JAF1970 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You hold the analog stick in the direction of the corner before you turn the corner of the maze, and it makes sparks come from Pac-Man. This slightly increases his speed, so you can use this to escape from ghosts that are right behind you. SeanMooney 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Iwatani's retirement

This article ought to mention that it was Toru Itawani's final game for Namco, and released right before he announced his retirement. Kouban 13:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was mentioned in that Joystiq article as well. JAF1970 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pear, Pineapple or Hand Grenade?

Look at the "pear". Is it officially a pear in text somewhere? It's kind of hard to tell. I still can't tell. JAF1970 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the green thing with the "handle" attached? That's actually a melon - this exact shape is used on MANY Japanese products (candies, sodas, etc) that feature melon flavoring. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick addition: The melon is referenced in the Achievements for the 360 release of the original Pac-Man (one of the achievements is to eat the melon - aka reach a certain stage). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me. I changed it a while ago. :p JAF1970 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man 2

So, in the above archived debate, the subject of "Pac-Man 2" came up as a title, and I mentioned that I was happy with the citation that was put in to support this alternative title. Later, though, I read through the article and found it actually does not refer to the game as such, and neither do any of the other sources I could find. I did find comments in forums and the comments section of the Joystiq article saying the game SHOULD have been called Pac-Man 2, but the official title seems to be limited only to Championship Edition.

It may also be worth noting that there is, in fact, another game named Pac-Man 2: The New Adventures - a side-scrolling game loosely based on the cartoon series. Obviously, I can't speak for the game developers, but I can see why having two related games both called "Pac-Man 2" would be confusing. That is probably why this one didn't take that title. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maze descriptions

Manhattan course: How do the maze patterns shift any more wildly in this course than they do in all the others? In my opinion, the Manhattan course seems to have the most repititious patterns of all the courses. I'd say that the patterns change just as wildly in, say, the "Patience and reward" course as they do in the Manhattan course. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scoring Details discussion

Reopening the Scoring Details discussion: I propose that, in order to apply the guidelines listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines consistently across game articles, the fruit table and other scoring details be removed from this article, Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, etc. These items are extra details that do not contribute directly to the "encyclopedicness" (is that a word?) of the article. See Talk:Pac-Man and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines for similar discussions, and please feel free to comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments For/Against

• Remove (KieferSkunk): Unnecessary level of detail not needed in order for a casual reader to understand the game. Information is covered on StrategyWiki or similar sub-wiki. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (JAF1970): Reasons given below. Also see /Archive 1 for more detail.
• Keep (SeanMooney): "My personal opinion is that the page was mostly fine before, only needing minor edits. It was not overly long and did not need very much condensing. It was formatted well and easy to read. It did not read like a game guide to me either - since the whole point of Pac-Man CE is to get the best possible score in the time limit, listing scoring details is necessary (as long as it's not overboard)." (quote by SeanMooney from Archive 1.)
• Remove. I'm sorry, but the inclusion of this content definitely violates the guidelines, and WP:NOT. Andre (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for fruit inclusion

Fruit tables are present in Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, etc. This has been established. Furthermore, new fruit has been included (ie. Galaga Drone). That differentiates it from other Pac games. It does not impart any "strategy", etc. It's just plain old information, the same type of information you'll find in card, board, and other video game articles. If you remove this, remove all like information from other pages first. JAF1970 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for discussion on Talk:Pac-Man as to whether or not we should keep the fruit table there. The specific list of fruits and their scores is more detail than necessary, IMO, and the article could suffice with a simple mention that there are fruits in the game, and this article can still mention the Galaga and Galaxian drones in prose, without requiring a full list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Split and expand DX version

I suggest that, since there are a fair number of modes and very unique reception to the original game, it be split. It would allow for it to grow and for it to not feel like slapped onto the original game's article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, so I have split off the DX content to Pac-Man Championship Edition DX. Missing some references for reception, so if someone could add those that would be nice.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "critical"

Well, I agree that the term "critical" can also mean "by a critic" however that isn't the common term (sadly) here on Wikipedia, especially when refering to reviews.

• The commonest usage, and seemingly implied usage in theis context is that it was critically acclaimed, which is not true.
• The term is not necessary to show that the reviews were by critics - who else would they be by? By definition, the submission of a review makes them a critic - it's not necessary to identify their profession. a_man_alone (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How is saying that something was "positively received by critics" different from saying it was "critical acclaimed"?

And I think it is necessary to say in some way that it's reviews by critics. It could have included user reviews too. And maybe user reviews weren't positive. So by specifically saying that critical reviews which were positive, we keep it to what can be confirmed by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A user reviewing soemthing becomes a critic the instant he says something about a topic. that's what the term critic means.

Saying that something was "positively received by critics" is very different from saying it was "critical [sic] acclaimed"? - by saying something was critically acclaimed you are implying that it was universally approved, not that it was acclaimed by critics - hence the (awkward) usage of the term "positively received by critics". However, it is not necessary to append the term "by critics", as any review by definition was done by a critic.

Also, the article does not say "positively received by critics", it says "released to mostly positive (critical) reviews" - the addition of the term "critical" in an otherwise acceptable sentence is what we're arguing over here.

The addition of the term "critical" is adding undue weight to the positivity of the reviews, and implies that they were more favourable than they were. a_man_alone (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the word "critic" to mean just anyone who reviews something. I see it mainly to mean professional reviewers. Just like I don't take the statement that something "was negatively received by critics, but was an audience success", to mean that people in general liked the thing, but anyone who bothered to express their opinion about the thing hated it. Rather I take it mean that professional reviewers did not like it. Also, I don't see anyone who expresses their opinion on a movie to instantly become a film critic.

But if you are sure that people will take the phrase "it was released to mostly positive critical reviews" to mean that all critics liked it, then I am not against using some other wording. We could say "it received mostly positive reviews by critics", or we could even say "by professional reviewers", if you don't think that's implied in the word.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My objection is specifically to the phrase "critical" - which I do not deny can mean what you mean. However, a brief look through any number of pages on Wiki shows that the term is far more commonly used to refer to something (in a paraphrase) "that has been critically acclaimed" - ie has received rapturous applause. The term "it received mostly positive reviews by critics" is better - I still don't think that the term "critic" is really necessary, but that usage is certainly better than the current one. a_man_alone (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we will go with that then.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)