Talk:Team Fortress 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Team Fortress 2 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Team Fortress 2 has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Team Fortress 2 is part of the "The Orange Box" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
 

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere, in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Valve task force.
VG To-do:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
To-do list for Team Fortress 2: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand the reception section. More information on the reception of the major April update is a good place to start.
Priority 4  
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: I'm postive the spy has a French/Spanish/British/Italian accent. Can I add that to the article?
A:The accent for the spy cannot be verified by reliable sources. Unless a reliable source (which does not include fan sites or other wikis) can be found to verify the accent, or it is confirmed in a primary source from Valve, do not add accents for this character. Due to the wide-range of suggested accents for the character, it is prudent not to include any accent.
Q:Does the sniper carry a machete or a kukri?
A:Although this was previous subject to much debate and was previously rested on machete due to the game models being named machete and a lack of reliable sources pointing to kukri, the introduction of the character customisation screen into the game has confirmed that the sniper carries a kukri, not a machete.
Q:The demoman's bottle contains scotch/scrumpy. Can I add this to the article?
A:As there is evidence to the effect that the demoman's bottle is both scotch (from a variety of game textures of the bottle) and scrumpy (from a line spoken by the demoman) it is more prudent not to refer to the bottle's contents, unless a reliable source can be used to conclusively back the point up.
Q:The pyro is clearly female. Can I include this in the article?
A:No reliable sources are available to verify this and it is after all entirely speculation, so it should not be included. If in the future Valve confirms that the pyro is indeed female, then this should be altered.
Q:Can we include game-guide content?
A:As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a game guide, do not include any game guide style content, such as indepth information on weapons, multiplayer map lists, lists of achievements, lists of ranks, trivia, etc. Individual sections consisting of indepth information on each class falls into this category.
Q:Can I add fan sites, clans or the TF2 Wiki to the external links?
A:Do not include fan sites or open wikis in the external links section. Wikipedia is not a repository for linkspam.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wikiproject videogame assessment

Hello, I'm posting in response to a request for the article to be assessed, hope this is of some help. I've kept the article at B grade, mid importance. The next step would be to get the article to good article standard and nominate it, or push beyond that into A-class standard and resubmit the article to the assessment dept. of the videogame project. Here's some suggestions:

  • The development section would be better suited towards the end of the article, directly before reception.
  • Referencing is good, nice work, there are a couple of areas missing some citations (like the Release subheading under development) though, citing these would help a future GA nomination.
  • The Classes subheading under gameplay is further split into sub-subheadings for each character, it doesn't look right and could be condensed into a few paragraphs. Are the different classes officially known as 'defensive' or 'support'? If so, they could be grouped that way.
  • "An Australian[30] character with low damage tolerance, the sniper wears a slouch hat of the Australian traditional military dress" Is it necessary to include descriptions of the characters' nationality/accent and clothing? I don't know either way, but if I wanted to know about how a FPS character handles what kind of hat they're wearing doesn't come into it.
  • The bulleted list of maps is overkill, the opening and closing sentences are great, but the list doesn't offer anything other than names, which serve no purpose, and whether it's a CTF or control point map. Why would a reader unfamiliar with the game need to know that there's a level called Granary which is a control-point map? I'd suggest killing the list and merging the information about maps into the gameplay section.
  • The graphics section as is doesn't have much of a role, is there more to come or is that 'it'? The style of graphics could be summed up in a sentence or two in gameplay, the development information could be covered under that heading.
  • Reception is on the short side.
  • Article lead is nearly there, beef up the second paragraph with relevant information and that should be good to go.
  • Double-check for clarity, for instance "The heavy is physically the toughest class in the game". What does that actually mean? Can he sustain more damage? Inflict more damage physically? Do his firearms inflict more damage?

This a solid article with most of the materials in place for a GA attempt. A little expansion and some more cites, sorting the information into larger paragraphs and quashing lists, it's nip and tuck stuff. Well done for bringing it this far, I'd suggest carrying out some more work and resubmitting it for another look. Someoneanother 14:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick reply regarding accents and appearance: yes, a lot of the reviews have put forward that the personalities of each of the characters has added a heck of a lot to an area of gaming (multiplayer) where this usually isn't the case, so their inclusion seems notable. That stuff on the snipers hat is probably overkill, but the concept of the personalities and appearance is noteworthy. -- Sabre (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point well made, struck. Someoneanother 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 360 version added content, damage questions, and skywalking

The most important thing I want to bring up is the added content. There has already apparently been some official added content released by valve for the Pc version, however there is none on my (or any other that I know of) 360 (prefer 360, less rate and cheating issues).

Is the additional content going to be released for the 360? Is it going to be free in the form of an update, or is it going to be a free market download, or is it going to be a paid for market download?

Also are the damage rates different in the 360 version? Because I have seen a few sources now that all provide identical/similar figures, and were compiled using the Pc version, yet ingame on the 360 the damage amounts differ greatly from those stated.

Also are the very present glitches in the 360 version (of which skywalking is the most notable) present in the Pc version? and are they scheduled to be removed?92.5.131.121 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I own both, and let me say, in all things, consider the 360 version about a month or two behind the PC one at all times. Valve has announced that the April PC update will be coming to the 360 soon, though they cannot announce anything for the PS3 version. And as for the damage values... they are the same, and the notable difference can really be explained as the difference in control schemes. PC gets to aim faster, but 360 has incredibly steady aim. Once someone's on your crosshairs in 360, there's much less of a chance of them getting away.
And as an owner of both, I agree- I enjoy the 360 version more. It's not better, really, I just like the flavor of it better. 12.210.80.126 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies- didn't know I wasn't logged in. That was me. Midaki (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content Update?

Should we put something in about the upcoming medic update? It seems notable enough to garner at least a paragraph or two (considering it adds three new unlockable weapons, 36 achievements and a new map).

Replace the word "paragraph" with "sentence" and you'd be right. We don't need two paragraphs to one single update that hasn't happened yet. -- Sabre (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Valve's constant free update philosophy is worthy of its own section, IMHO. There are already a few larger updates since launch, and it'll become quite central to the game experience as time goes on. Also, Valve are notably unique in providing so much free downloadable content. I say we create an "Updates" section where news maps, unlockables, significant tweaks and similar can be mentioned. HertzaHaeon (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about adding in any of the updates before this one, they just aren't notable enough. This update, however, adds entirely new game mechanics and should definitely be added in. 98.209.113.94 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No update is so notable that it requires a section. Just a few sentences to modify existing information in existing sections is all that is needed. Wikipedia isn't a news site, and such information is more aimed at fans of the game than encyclopedia readers. -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No single update deserves its own section, sure, but the updatign strategy as a whole does. It's undeniably central to the game's play mechanics and experience. What's more, with no specific place to write about updates, you'll get a lot of little sentences spread throughout the article, since updates cover so much. Wouldn't it be more to the point and informative to keep them in their own section? HertzaHaeon (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If kept short, encyclopedic and positively away from the game guide material around the rest of the article, then you're looking at a few sentences or a paragraph tops into the development section. If it's going anywhere, it should be in there, not in a dedicated main heading. Anything more indepth than that is highly likely to fall into the realms of the game guide, and that is not what Wikipedia is here for. Heck, what we've got on the classes at the moment is still too indepth, and needs to be reorganised before any good article attempt is made. -- Sabre (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be in the Development section, but it really doesn't fit under the Release subsection, since that covers the game as it was when it was new. A new section would work better, IMHO. How about something like this:
Updates & ongoing development
Since the release of Team Fortress 2, Valve has continously released free updates and patches through Steam. The updates include new official maps and game modes, as well as tweaks to classes and new weapons that can be unlocked through achievements. Valve has stated that they aim to keep the updates free even for console versions of the games.[1]
That's of course with the soon to be released update with unlockables in mind. HertzaHaeon (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems excellent: it keeps a good distance away from the unnecessary detail, but does a good job of putting the point that updates are happening. It's also relatively short. I'll put that in. However, I think it can fit into the release section with a quick name change to the release sub-section title: release and ongoing development. If it becomes necessary to expand that later, it can be broken off into a new subsection, but I can't forsee that being necessary. I'll look into getting some more references for it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If there were to be a massive update, i.e. adding stuff like vehicles and outer space and stuff that would CERTAINLY be enough to justify an entire section. Although I agree with you in the fact that it only needs a few sentences. 204.38.161.175 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It has just been released. 68.32.208.49 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the uypdate has been released and the map/gametype "Gold Rush" and the three new medic weapons have been released. And the have confirmed 3 new classes and 36 new acievements PER CLASS are coming soon. Once they are ALL released I can see this becoming a paragraph. --APShinobi My Contribs 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
We aren't here to cover this like a news or fan site. We cover what is necessary for a reader who has not and may never play the game needs to know, so the fact that the medic gets a saw with a syringe in it or the pyro gets a napalm-spewing thermos is not relevant. Major updates should be covered in the development, but not in that level of detail, rather an overview. -- Sabre 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Kukri, not a machete

I just downloaded the Goldrush update, and checked out the screen where it shows what weapons you have earned so far. On the Sniper's page, the "machete" is listed as a "Kukri." With the old debate solved, I have updated the page to reflect this. Anyone who has TF2, can go and look at it for themselves and confirm it. I mean, I know that we are all about verifiable sources of information, but it looks like we could have had a leap of faith on this issue and it would have been fine. 72.234.46.115 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we could have, but that would have been against Wikipedia policies. Anyway, we have a source now, and it's fixed. Midaki (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TF2 improvements

I'm going to conduct a partial rewrite of some elements of the article, namely the gameplay section. This is the bit that's holding the article up more than any for GA status, so I'm going to redo it to provide a better, more generalised overview in keeping with our guidelines. With the new weapon updates and such, the current structure is not sustainable, involves far too much detail on individual classes and can too easily fall into excessive game-guide information. Certainly one of the things I'm going to cut back on is the physical descriptions of each class, as Image:TF2 Group.jpg does that job without the need for the prose. -- Sabre (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think dot points with a line of description each would look nice.--203.214.96.163 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, the guidelines state that lists should be avoided within video game articles. If it can be done in prose, as it has been, it should be. I did discuss the idea of lists with a more experienced member of the WP:VG project, but as the assessment at the top of this page put forward, a brief overview perspective in prose is far superior in terms of encyclopedic quality than a list or individual sections. -- Sabre (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, the way I see it, there's two main things holding us up before going for good article status. The first is the lead section, I'll take care of that later. The second is the missing citations. There are at least three "citation needed" tags in the development section that need to be taken care of, two of them relating to the "Invasion design" section, which is rather lacking in overall references. I'm going to take a look for some citations, can other people please make an attempt to find some references for these three points as well, as otherwise the information is going to have to be removed if it cannot be verified. -- Sabre (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the lead. The only major thing left is those citations. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done my best with the citations. I've unfortunately had to merge the Invasion section as I can't find sources to back it up. -- Sabre (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Overall, I think that this article is a very solid article. Its prose and images are all here. I think that the only issue here is in the realm of citations. Several statements are potentially questionable and need citations. Here are the ones I found:

  • Early development: "During that time, both Walker and Cook worked on various other Valve projects—Walker was project lead on Half-Life 2: Episode One and Cook became a Steam developer, among other tasks—raising doubts that Team Fortress 2 was really the active project that would be repeatedly described."
  • Final design: "Due to the game's lengthy development cycle it was often mentioned alongside Duke Nukem Forever, another long-anticipated game that has seen many years of protracted development and engine changes." Just give an example or two of say, Wired News, so it doesn't look like OR.
  • Final design: "Team Fortress 2 was also the first game to implement the Source engine's new Facial animation 3 features."
  • The whole Release and ongoing development section.

For these reasons, I'm keeping the article on hold for a week. I don't expect that they should be too hard to cite, but if they are, let me know. I'll be checking within a week, but if there are special circumstances or if they are cited before that, I'll take a look at it. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've addressed them all. -- Sabre (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's better. I feel that I can promote now. If you're aiming for FA status, I suggest an expansion of the reception section. A few more reviews are coming in, for example, Gamespot just posted their belated review of TF2 only. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I too feel the reception section is still a bit short, but I simply ran out of things to say. I'll take it on again in a month or two, see if I can't expand it some more. -- Sabre (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] classes

consolidating the existing information about the classes into 3 paragraphs resulted in the same information as before, but presented in a more disorganized way. As such, reverted to the older page. Serializing the list into paragraphs greatly detracted from the overall readability of the article, and did nothing to remove un-encyclopedic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.195 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it presents the same information in less than half the space? That sounds great—the old version must have been rife with redundancies. Pagrashtak 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If the concern is that the information is now less readable in it's current form, I'm happy to do a copyedit. Please understand though that we're not trying to go into unnecessary detail here, as we're not making a manual or trying to mimic strategy guides etc. Hopefully there's a compromise where we can have clear, sourced information without breaking policies on having too much detail.Gazimoff WriteRead 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive detail

For reference.

Game Mode Original Maps 2008 Update
Control Point Dustbowl Badlands
Granary
Gravel Pit
Well (CP)
Capture The Flag 2Fort Well (CTF)
Payload Goldrush
Territory Control Hydro