Talk:TimeSplitters 4/Archive 1

"I think we want to put it on the Wii."

http://kotaku.com/gaming/leave-none-behind/timesplitters-4-on-wii-303665.php

Just a messenger, someone add that to the page if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phazon eater (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

Responding to a request at WP:VG/A.

• Lead is too short, does not fit WP:LS.
• Suggestion: delete sections, and merge all into lead.
• What is the significance of the information that "nothing has been stated for a Wii version"? Why not mention the PC as well?
• "Not much information is currently given". Do not state things like this in a Wikipedia article.
• timesplitters4.net seems to be a fansite, and should be removed from the external links per WP:EL.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing on the page that should lead to the removal of this external link. Am I missing something? --ILHI 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fansite. Geoff B 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't find that on that page, closest thing that may rule out ts4.net is "Links mainly intended to promote a website." --ILHI 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That link was placed there for the express purpose of advertising. http://timesplitters4.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=3ab5a1393ea144f691889a840a19e1f3&topic=62.0 - "Timesplitters4.net mentioned in Wikipedia". So it's not a case of 'may' rule it out, it does rule it out. Geoff B 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They did not put that link there for advertising. I put the link there when I first made this article. It was because it was one of the few links available that's about TimeSplitters 4. I don't even go to timesplitters4.net. The topic you saw I'm guessing is just noting how their website is linked from the article. Of course I can't say the same for the people that put back the link after it had been removed. Wi Account ki 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As the owner and founder of the site in question, AND the person who made that post, I would just like to confirm that you have taken it far out of context. I, nor any of our staff, had anything to do with the link originally appearing in the wikipedia entry. I posted that as I was excited that were were mentioned. And furthermore, we are not a simple fan site. We have actual active developers on our site, interacting with the community, and providing official confirmed news as it happens. I don't see how we can get any more relevent to the topic DrkSnpr14 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.108.77 (talk)

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. - From Wikipedia's external links policy which you still haven't read. Including a link to a website which you admitted you founded and currently own is a conflict of interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). Geoff B 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not originally link it I had nothing to do with it, neither did any people in control of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrkSnpr14 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The users had nothing to do with adding the link to the wiki as stated above by Wi Account Ki.Seeing as how it's currently the only relevant site for the game besides the developers web page I think it should be placed back. It would be different if the link was placed their by the creator of the site, or even a member, but this is not true. Eattack42 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All Gameplay, No Story?

I watched Gamer.tv (on Bravo TV) on 10/08/07 (DD/MM/YY) and there was a segment about games from the Edinburgh Gaming Festival (or something like that). There was also a mention of TimeSplitters 4 by one of the games developers. The Gears of War spoof logo was shown, but then the dude talked about how the developing group for TS4 were looking at the possibility of creating it as a no-story arcade-styled game, much like the original TimeSplitters game. It would be good to have a mention of this in the article. I'd do it myself but I'm having difficulty citing a source (Gamer.TV hardly ever does repeats). King Wagga 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.frd.co.uk/letters.php - "We've got a pretty tasty story, but you'll just have to wait and see." Looks like they thought no story was a silly idea after all. SaintDaveUK (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vocab

Can someone please capitalize and fix spelling errors. The article starts out fine then degrades into a grade A piece of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.53.32 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took you to leave this comment, you could have done it yourself.Thatcrazycommie 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

YES!

Another Timesplitters, the best shooter series ever made... Just above Jedi Knight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.92.88 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't Wait!!! Really want it to be on Xbox Live. Think how much ass that would kick ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.143.146 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that they had concluded the series in Future Perfect? Eh, whatever... Just so long as there aren't any of those paradoxical puzzles (like the one in U-Genix You Genius). I hated those... 86.140.232.121 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New scans, new characters, and new announcement!!

i found some scans that shws some returning characters, and new ones and some more new information and an official website for timesplitters 4 that we should add to this article! [[1]] [[2]]

"Won't use Haze Engine"

Why does this matter in the slightest?

"Free Radical Design has recently mentioned that TimeSplitters 4 will not utilise the much-criticised Haze engin"

Is it worth noting it also won't use the Quake 3 or Dark Engine either while we're stating useless facts?

- 82.5.252.243 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (JamesR: Signed as Anon)

It is very worth noting - like the article says, FRD claimed they would be using their HAZE engine for TS4 for a long time. This worried many gamers and FRD obviously decided to swerve away from that area. Until you find us more informative facts on how TimeSplitters will run, I think it is quite necessary to keep it up there. SaintDaveUK (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

http://www.frd.co.uk/timesplitters4/index.php I wonder if we could add this new logo from the official website

I would do it myself but not only have I never uploaded a picture to wiki before, the absence of the number '4' could cause confusion - unless the 4 from the currently uploaded image is pasted over it SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated the logo myself. Sorry for the millions of reverts. Hope you like it.SaintDaveUK (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks cool 'The Ninjalemming' 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

CANCELLED

http://www.unseen64.net/2009/01/21/timesplitters-4-wii-cancelled 65.191.25.169 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!

Please join our project to upgrade this article to featured status.