Talk:Unreal (1998 video game)

Archives

No archives yet.

Article features wrong date

There have been several edits after a deface a few years ago and one of those has removed the release dates from the infobox on the right. Then there has been 2 uncited changes that added the date as April 30:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unreal_%281998_video_game%29&type=revision&diff=713969422&oldid=711467804 <-- changes the text to say April 1998 instead of May 1998
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unreal_%281998_video_game%29&type=revision&diff=757487496&oldid=754591435 <-- this adds the PC release date as April 30 to the infobox

The correct date for PC release is May 22 as confirmed by older versions of the page and this page at EpicGames.com: https://www.epicgames.com/community/celebrating-15-years-of-unreal-with-a-steam-sale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:1811:C200:8485:B88E:68CC:D2F7 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"..killing all survivors found alive"? SURVIVORS FOUND ALIVE??

Pardon me, but all survivors are, by default, alive. Hence, I'm modifying it. Could have done it silently, but was compelled to share with u guys. rohith 07:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we consolidate all of the stubby subpages for Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal Tournament 2004 into just this page? 195.92.194.15 18:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wahahahahahaha: "King of the Kill games must be found.." in the King of the Hill pharagraph. Hing of the Kill, it should be!

What does "gone gold" mean? Mintguy 10:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cf. gold master, ready for release. I'll fix it up. Dysprosia 10:55, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Someone could do with adding more information about Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal 2. User:ChicXulub 21:50, 29 Mar 2004 (GMT)

I have done so. Zaxxon 02:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think perhaps the text relating to the various forms in which UT2K4 was released (6 CDs, 1/2 DVD etc) needs reworking since it seems to have been done differently in some places than in others. CorvusCorax 08:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I think it might be extraneous info not necessarily relevant to an encyclopedia article on the game. Perhaps simply mentioning that UT99 came on a CD, UT2k3 on several, and UT2k4 on several CDs plus the introduction of a DVD version would be adequate. Thanks for fixing my fix, BTW Corvus.  :) Zaxxon 13:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fact that both UT2k3 and UT2k4 CD/DVD distributions included an installer for Linux may interest some people. --That Guy, From That Show! 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the 05-07-2005 update looks like it's partially fan fiction? Retodon8

It was copy and pasted from Planet Unreal, which is a copyright violation anyway. I removed it. K1Bond007 July 6, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

I don't think the sentance, "The planet Na Pali is rich in Tarydium, an exotic crystal that possesses a high energy yield, whose utility is the reason for which the Skaarj have invaded..." is completely accurate because, when I played the game, I don't remember it ever saying why the Skaarj attacked, so I don't think it is correct to state it as fact. It may have been in the novels, but I have not read them so correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repzik (talk contribs) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Creatures section

Shall we ditch the ridiculously large Creatures section?

Looks like someone removed it already. In my opinion a seperate page would be better ("Creatures in the Unreal Series" ? ). Pasting it in the main article looks a bit like nonsense to me too, but i do think the creatures section has the right to be here. -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Sat Dec 31 23:44:32 UTC 2005

I've tried to shorten it a bit by organising it into columns. This makes the page more attractive, but there's still a lot of stuff there. A separate page might be best. That's certainly how other games have dealt with longs lists of enemies and weapons. --Plumbago 12:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of Creatures Section

I think that the sorting of the creatures section is very inaccurate. At first glance I would think that groups Friendly, Hostile and Neutral would imply something along the lines of:

• Friendly: Helps the player in some way
• Hostile: Tries to kill player
• Neutral: Doesn't do either, just sits around and does nothing :P

This clearly does not fit in with what is shown on the page. After some thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the sorting of the creatures on the page implies this:

• Friendly: Either helps the player or does nothing
• Hostile: Tries to kill player because wants to/programmed to (in other words is an important enemy in the game)
• Neutral: Tries to kill player but only because its some stupid creature that kills for food or to protect itself (meaning its not working for the Skaarj, its just a dumb creature in the way of players progress)

I think this is a pretty ambigious definition of Friendly, Hostile and Neutral. I think the best thing would be to put it into 4 groups. A "Friendly" group, a "Neutral" group, an "Enemy (working for Skaarj)" group and an "Annoying Monster" group, with a definition of each underneath. I'm gonna do this myself, and i'm writing all of this so you understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. --AndreRD 09:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w yu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.199.100 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting

This section doesn't seem at all appropriate for a Wiki entry so I've deleted it. --MMAN2 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny Trivia

ASMD stands for And Suck My Dick. [1] Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bodega Bay, the ship the prisoner has to evade to escape the planet and end the game, is referred to by her as a "Freeman class cruiser" in the audio of the last log entry screen. Freeman.... hmmm where have I heard that name before? It's an amusing little dig at the competition, especially considering what happens to the Bodega Bay at the end. Dongzhongshu (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Boxart

Shouldn't someone replace the current boxart with something more appropiate? The current boxart shown is for Unreal Gold and not of the original game itself. --StalwartUK 21:24, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Level design

"Many map designers believe that this eliminates the tedium of matching up separate walls, floors and ceilings."

This statement doesn't really seem neutral towards Quake engine level design. Thought I should flag it up.

Weapons Section

I will delete the Weapons section with respect to WP:NOT#INFO. To a lesser extent, I can also invoke the ubiquitous WP:NOT#GUIDE and scope guidelines. Ong elvin 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Music

There is an cd, History Of Unreal Music, containing 23 tracks:

• 1. Flightcastle (U)
• 2. Shared Dig (U)
• 3. Dusk Horizon (U)
• 4. Bluff Eversmoking (U)
• 5. Isotoxin (U)
• 6. Unreal Temple (U)
• 7. Return To Pali (URTNP)
• 8. Unreal Tournament Menu (UT)
• 9. Foregone Destruction (UT)
• 10. Go Down (UT)
• 11. Botpack Nine (UT)
• 12. Mechanism Eight (UT)
• 13. Skyward Fire (UT)
• 14. Razorback (UT)
• 15. The Course (UT)
• 16. Unreal Tournament Menu (Redux) (UT 2004)
• 17. Ghost Of Anubis (UT 2004)
• 18. Infernal Realm (UT 2004)
• 19. Assault (UT 2004)
• 20. Arena (UT 2004)
• 21. From Below (UT 2004)
• 22. Sniper Time (UT 2004)
• 23. Onslaught One (UT 2004)

Mallerd 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see there's already an article containing that information: Unreal Anthology Mallerd (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

multiplayer

Wasn't there something about how the net code sucked, or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.185.108 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Initially, the multiplayer mode was almost unplayable, due to lag issues not forseen by Epic. By the time they fixed it, QuakeII had passed them in the market, or at least in gamer opinion. (Or at least, that's how I temember it from ten years ago.) --BlueNight (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the first non-beta patch was released in may 1999, a year after release - and just a few months before unreal tournament came out. I remember felling a bit ripped off by that at the time. 82.39.139.136 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mission Pack

"As it turns out, the player is to be terminated due to the fact this assignment is 'Deep Ultra' classified. The player reaches the bridge, activates the ELT transmitter, and does battle with a platoon of Marines. After a hard battle, the player manages to escape into a nearby mine system where they emerge at the Spire valley, which is located right next to the Sunspire." No way! I never escaped the Marines, and always thought it was a cool way to end a game, with infinite waves of enemies coming at you, forcing the player to a slow, painful, and inevitable death! I'll have to replay it! --BlueNight (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You missed like half the game! --Deuxsonic (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gold merge

Unreal Gold is a re-release of the original game and expansion, both of which are covered in Unreal. The changes in Gold can be discussed as part of the Unreal article. Re-releases and compilations rarely warrant their own article, and I don't see anything about Unreal Gold that would make an exception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial 227 patch

This unofficial patch located on http ://www.oldunreal.com adds native linux support, decals, native fixes such as better dualcore support, updated Direct 3D 9 and OpenGL support, as well as new built in security features among other things like increased stability overall. I believe a few links could be added in. ColorblindArtist (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about that all links to the page www.oldunreal.com which are added including the very valuable information about the native Linux port for unreal and many many more informations including the one above here was simply removed because someone who was obviously to lazy to do his homework declared it as spam. Oldunreal is the biggest support page for Unreal and offering all this for over 8 years now. To repeat a complete list again with all features and fixes which are available there makes only sense if this is going to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirftsch (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of the users above are affiliated with the unofficial patch/website. I encourage them to have a read at WP:COI. Neither the site nor the unofficial patch is covered in reliable sources which is a basic requirement for verifiability. The links to the site are unsolicited and self-promotional, which makes them WP:SPAM, regardless of how valuable the authors think their work is. Certainly, had you done your own homework and read Wikipedia's policies, you would not have attempted to advertise your work/website here, much less insert a personal attack in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

":Both of the users above are affiliated with the unofficial patch/website. I encourage them to have a read at WP:COI. Neither the site nor the unofficial patch is covered in reliable sources which is a basic requirement for verifiability."

Of course we are, but does the fact that I am the creator of the page makes me unbelievable? The patch is for official download, as the other sources and updates and fixes. You refer to [2] but still you simply remove all the links instead of verifying it? I only took part here (in fact I was forced too, since the current data is simply wrong) because you removed the links (which other people put already in here BEFORE we became involved) as spam without following your own rules "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - which is the case here - the fact that a working Linux port is available is very easy to confirm, as well as all other stuff. This has nothing to do with a personal attack or some advertisement, but community work, since this page is 100% adfree and absolutely non-commercial.

Some more links to confirm our reliability and that we are working with official permission: [3]http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=7830501#post7830501 [4]http://www.unreal.com/upgrade.html

(sorry for editing that often, need to get used to this here)

Smirftsch (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources (that would be you) and user-generated content (forums) are not reliable sources. Also, using sockpuppets to make edits and vandalize other users' pages[5] doesn't move the discussion in your favor. Simply put, you have now invalidated any claim you might have had to good faith, which makes it easier to justify reverting your edits as plain vandalism. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This makes me wonder, just how much good content ISN'T being put on wikipedia from good people. We aren't even citing the forums of oldunreal as a source, we're citing the actual patch that was created, that you can install and run yourself and see that it is infact viable. Also; none of those people listed in that defaced article are even affiliated with this patch. I also noticed that it was edited by an IP that is not mine; nor Smirftsch's.

ColorblindArtist (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifying things yourself is WP:OR. What the encyclopedia considers "good content" is information that is verifiable in reliable sources, period, of which nothing relating to the oldunreal website or patch is. What you consider "good content" is neither here nor there, but obviously you are not unbiased with respect to your own work. Whether the anon IPs belong to you, Smirftsch, meatpuppets, or otherwise unaffiliated people who tipped you off to the edit is indeterminable, and for the purposes of this discussion, largely irrelevant: I will point out that you and Smirftsch both managed to post on SPAs on the same day that edits by an anon were reverted. Unless you are claiming that this all happened by some cosmic coincidence, all these edits and your participation in this discussion are linked together. You can deny it, but it isn't plausible by any stretch. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Primary sources (that would be you) and user-generated content (forums) are not reliable sources." Ehrm, this is a community page and what else do you need than a page which has official permission and 8 years of good history? The page and the forums contain many many things which kept the game alive for all the time. But instead you put some link to "MobyGames" into your list? Of what use is that? What information do you get there? The dmoz link doesn't contain many useful things either- what did they do to come into this untouchable list here?

"Also, using sockpuppets to make edits and vandalize other users' pages[5] doesn't move the discussion in your favor. Simply put, you have now invalidated any claim you might have had to good faith, which makes it easier to justify reverting your edits as plain vandalism" Yeah, I was shown what someone put in your profile, but that wasn't me or my friend here. You may check IP's before accusing someone with that, or do you call this "discussion" here vandalize? I put a link into my forums about all this here, people should know whats going on and obviously someone "disagrees" with you who is not willing to talk about it like I do. So stop insulting me with these accusations!

"I will point out that you and Smirftsch both managed to post on SPAs on the same day that edits by an anon were reverted. Unless you are claiming that this all happened by some cosmic coincidence, all these edits and your participation in this discussion are linked together" What a big bunch of nonsense. You called this because you removed information in here which was hurting none of your rules. I was informed by Colorblind artist that for no obvious reason a very valuable information for the community was deleted without a reason. This for I registered here. I'm running my page now for over 8 years and its community driven without any commercial interest. Its only reason is to keep this game alive and that's the only reason why I'm still "discussing" here. You claim to follow rules, you call us "SPAs", but it was you who made the mistake here! Of course this is a SPA, because I never needed it before. What do you expect? Making false decisions and then silence the people who disagree with you? If you would have taken the time to verify the information which was placed here before from people who have no relation to me or my page (except visiting it) this never would have happened. "but obviously you are not unbiased with respect to your own work" of course I'm not, but this doesn't change the unselfish purpose of my page, the patch or my interest to have correct and not outdated information here. "You can deny it, but it isn't plausible by any stretch." Nobody denies anything here. There is nothing to deny because nobody claimed something. We are two people, but working for the same goal. Of course we share our opinion and discuss that over MSN. If you are not happy with the information the people provided here and don't accept that I and other people like Colorblind artist fight for it, I suggest you to finaly verify the information yourself instead of simply deleting it and add it yourself. If this is still not good enough for you its probably time to call an Administrator here. Smirftsch (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Smirftsch, since you are unable to address the actual points provided (did you actually read the policies linked to? Probably not, or you wouldn't continue to advocate original research), I don't feel like responding to your straw man arguments. By all means, call an administrator if you think there is anything inappropriate about my cleanup and maintenance of the article. You should realize that encouraging your friends and forum-goers to post on your behalf does not absolve you of responsibility for their actions. Again, see WP:MEATPUPPET. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the dmoz link, as usual, serves the purpose of deflecting a collection of fansite links to a website that is more appropriately suited to hosting them. Can you take a hint here? Btw, if you disagree with the Moby link, I won't contest a removal. So go ahead and do that, if it will solve your contention. Otherwise, I encourage you, again, to actually read WP:SPAM and note that the presence of other questionable links is not justification for adding more. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

":Smirftsch, since you are unable to address the actual points provided " I did many times, you simply don' want to read it. To verify what was posted would have been very easy in many ways. BUT:

1. You don't believe a unselfish page with over 8!! years of good reputation (Questionable link?)

2. You don't believe an official forum from Epic (Questionable link?)

3. You don't believe the fact that even Epic sends in case of an upgrade people to my page (Questionable link?)

4. You don't believe anyone and call them meatpuppets just because I made this discussion official at my forums

5. And still you yet continue to deny the fact for a Linux version for example, a version that you simply could download,and try? What more do you want to verify? The plain existence alone proofs a fact that can't be denied!

And yet you continue to say it isn't true? Or it can't be verified? I'm wondering how many links and information here on wikipedia can be verified that good. Nobody asked to put some "promotion" for Oldunreal on wikipedia, but the current information is inaccurate, outdated and because of that partially completely wrong. It refers to another game (UT) and a mod which isn't actively maintained for years now (oldskool) instead of listing the new capabilities of the game which can be easily confirmed by anyone who owns a PC and a copy of Unreal. If now from Epic or not doesn't even matter here.

Repeating your links again and again - oh and I read again the Spampage and yet do I disagree here, nothing mentioned there is here the case. Repeating the links to it won't change that. Blaming me for the things others did because I made this discussion here official won't change anything either. Another cheap excuse and insult. You call me biased but you are not objective either simply disregarding that all.

We agree however in one point. This leads to nowhere. I will contact administration of this page. This is absurd.

I surely agree that OldUnreal and the OldUnreal patches should be mentioned in here. Smirftsch has serviced the Unreal community for many years now with his patches, renderers and audio support. He donated an unbelievable amount of time and money in this Unreal related projects and website. OldUnreal is the prominent centre of the Unreal community as it exists now. 82.161.15.99 (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (Signed by Hyper.nl, Unreal community member and supporter, see hypercoop.tk for details)

---

I've worked in part on the OldUnreal patch and have contributed work to official patches in UT2004 and UT3, for verification on my UT2004 contributions download the 3369 patch from the Epic website: http://unreal.epicgames.com/files/ut2004-winpatch3369.exe

Rename it to .zip, and open the Help\ReadMePatch.int.txt file, my name "John Barrett" is listed there, and you can verify that name against my mod work on the Epic forums and BeyondUnreal news posts: http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=612189 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=609959 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=610968 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=530848 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=509382 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=508210 http://www.beyondunreal.com/view_story.php?id=8655

Feel free to PM me on the Epic forums or email to Shambler AT OldUnreal.com for further verification.

~ John "Shambler" Barrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.118.193 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the basic revamp of the Unreal Engine is "obscure information", Pastrami. Why are you fighting so hard against this anyways? I don't understand why you are so anti 227. Repzik (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki

Another possibility is to place this content on a more appropriate wiki, such as http://wiki.beyondunreal.com, which deals specifically with the subject in great depth and may allow for more obscure information to be added. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some fresh insight

Nobody is saying that this patch doesn't exist. Further proof that it exists is not necessary.

Instead, the problem is that no reliable source has seen fit to comment. Wikipedia isn't like a magazine or a newspaper, where writers will personally verify facts by going and checking them personally or by interviewing those who were present. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, seeking to use those sources that are like a magazine or newspaper both to verify that factual claims are true and identify claims important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. This latter part is key: we aren't mentioning this particular Unreal fan patch not because we don't think it exists, but rather because there are many things that exist so we must follow the lead of reliable sources in determining which things to cover.

Pointing us to people to contact or sources which don't meet our standards isn't helpful in solving the real problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with AMIB here. Although your work on Unreal is commendable (I was a fan of the game myself when it first came out), it can't be mentioned in the article because of a lack of reliable secondary sources. The kind of thing that would help here is a mention in a magazine such as PC Format, Edge or something similar. We'd even consider some online sources like Gamespot, IGN, ActionTrip, 1UP and so on as long as it's propoer content and not a forum posting or a blog entry. If there's something like that lurking around that you can show us and that we agree meets the criteria of being a reliable source, then we can put some information in. Not too much - we need to make sure that the article is balanced and that we don't give a section undue weight. So, help us out with finding some top notch sourcing, and we'll help you out by making sure it's in there properly. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the creators and the people in contract with them are not meeting your standards? Mmh...but this explanation is acceptable.

Anyway, I was happy already once I've seen the page has been re-edited and is now much better than before- disregarding if Oldunreal is now on it or not- although I noticed that an external link to my page already exists again(and no, it wasn't me and I don't know who it was).

Talking about magazines, there was already some years ago at least one german magazine who reported about Oldunreal, as well as many pages when I once released the first OpenGL patches. The current patches are not meant to be "that public yet", since I am still in the process of bugfixing- although the final version is now close. Oldunreal is having a long history already, as you can imagine for an over 8 year old page and there have been already a couple of reports about it- at least on many Unreal related pages. We'll see what happens once I announce the final patch.

Remember, the only sorrow here is that potentially useful information about the game -and to keep it alive- is not being considered here, I have no commercial benefit from this patch or the page except my donation button, but this is hardly enough to pay the page itself ;) Smirftsch (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While thinking for quite a while about the above posted arguments, I have to admit, that your logic is flawed:

"Wikipedia isn't like a magazine or a newspaper, where writers will personally verify facts by going and checking them personally or by interviewing those who were present. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, seeking to use those sources that are like a magazine or newspaper both to verify that factual claims are true and identify claims important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia."

Thats exactly what I'm talking about- all these are profit-oriented pages and magazines, why are these regarded more important than any existing related and non-profit page, including mine, which is even older than Wikipedia itself remains unclear to me. Of course, if this would be some scientific assumption or claim, which no one, or hardly someone could check themselves, it makes sense to ask for external verification from experts- but here anyone can be the expert- just download and try.

I read again and again the mentioned links about reliability, but in this specific case there is not enough information provided. There is nothing mentioned about reporting a fact which can't be denied (like the patch)- because everyone can verify its existing at any time- must be verified again. How can this be a "factual claim"?! Yeah, the earth is still a discus too.

In this case it indeed makes no sense at all to ask about more verification while it MUST be expected that none of your mentioned magazines probably will ever report again about such an old game. I have no clue which magazines may have written about Oldunreal in the past (except this one german magazine I was made aware of, but can't find it anymore either). Only one I found so far (but was not the one in the magazine): http://www.giga.de/show/gigagames/maxx/00120369_oldunreal_patch_released/

Disregarding the remaining community and the people that keep this game alive- the only people who are still willing and able to give reports about that can't be right either. Looking that way it will be impossible to ever verify this patch although existing.

Currently already 1/3 of all servers are running 227 already. Is that maybe fact enough?

Aside this I found also the following: "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."

So a forum can be used- if willing to do so- the forum post of a Senior Producer of Epic in the official forums really could be considered as someone with "adequate level of integrity".

My suggestion would be to add some "3rd party support" section (or whatever you want to call it) and to put the informations in there, since they are already inherent regular parts of the game which simply can't be denied.

I think you guys should stop reading your rules letter by letter but by its meaning. Its the same with UnrealTournament and the UTPG patches. Although in use for years they are simply disregarded here. This looks plain wrong for some online encyclopedia. 79.211.239.83 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just sort of stumbled upon this debate, but why are all mentions of the Linux port being removed? Other games with source ports (e.g. Doom, Quake, Descent, Duke Nukem 3D, etc) typically mention them, at least in passing and in the "supported platforms" in the infobox. TheWarlock (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading this a bit more. Is the problem that there aren't external sources on a very niche issue, or is the problem that 98.117.193.137 isn't allowed to add a link to his own website? The Descent (video game) article, for instance, has a one-sentence blurb on the platforms it's been unofficially ported to, and I don't see how that's inappropriate for this article as well. TheWarlock (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi TheWarlock. The main problem is that there are no external sources. It's a secondary problem that 98.X.X.X has not accepted this policy and continues to edit (and has made threats). If you could find a 3rd party references that meets WP:VS guidelines, there'd be no problem. I note your edit and reference is of the same type edit - I believe it also suffers from the same problem, and I'd request you to revert the edit yourself first.. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be annoying here, but virtually every other video game-based article allows primary sources to be used as references in this type of case. Clearly the port exists. WP:RS states that primary sources can be used for, and I quote, "basic statements of fact", which is all that I'm using it for. (It's not as if the entire article is revolving around this or other primary sources). I think I'm well within the rules here. TheWarlock (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not annoying :-) You're very entitled to discuss and question - that's what the Talk page is for. Reviewing WP:RS, I agree that your edit is being used as a basic statement of fact and does not need a 3rd party source to verify. I've crossed out my suggestion - I'm happy to leave it as it is. --HighKing (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest blocking StalwartUK's editing rights to this page due to bias opinion against 227, posted publically here http://www.unrealsp.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9591#9591 and seeing he has numerously edited this out even though it is clearly within rules of wikipedia. ColorblindArtist (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As you are a developer of 227 apparently you most certainly have a biased opinion towards the 227 patch. My edits are fully within the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:SOAP and WP:EL. I have also been able to find an official statement from Epic Games on their own website on what they think of the patch. As far as I know it is most certainly against the rules to plug a Wikipedia article to advertise or otherwise promote a product or service. StalwartUK (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm not a developer of that patch, and I've justified my edits by WP:RS, so please don't remove information from Wikipedia after a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Thanks. TheWarlock (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I haven't ever edited the page? ColorblindArtist (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm so tired of these continued attacks. That WAS NOT what Epic told about the patch. I corrected it to the correct statement - almost word by word. Also as stated already above to add a link for Linux support was fully within the rules. Can PLEASE somebody stop that now? --Smirftsch (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirftsch (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection and a Warning

I have blocked the anon IP address (98.117.193.137) who was edit-warring on this article. Furthermore, this anon editor made a number of threats on User talk:HighKing that if the content was removed again, other editors would be mobilized to spam the article. Consequently, I have semi-protected this as a preventative measure for 1 week, preventing anonymous or newly registered editord from editing it.

Additionally, I have a warning that needs to be known to all: if I detect a collaborative campaign to edit war in the same or similar mannner to that which has just been stopped now, I will not hesitate to block the users concerned for increasing lengths of time, and the article may end up being fully-protected. If the contested material is thought to be worthy of being included, it should be discussed on this talk page first, and consensus agreed before it is added. Sorry for this action, but preventing further disruptive actions by one or more editors seemed the best way to proceed at this point. My comments do not refer to the work of any established editors who have generally behaved quite correctly in all of this.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Linux Release

Hi, it is inappropriate to state that the game had a Linux release since this was not officially released by the company at the time, and was never for sale or supported. --HighKing (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is up with you guys here? It wasn't stated that the game had a Linux release, it was stated that it now is having a Linux port, this is a big difference. Do we really need to start this all over again and again? Also the statement in Unofficial updates was plain wrong, Epic never said that they do not recommend it. If you make changes, please stay at least with the truth and start to accept facts, there was more than enough discussion about that already.

"An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."

Thats what I found in your Rulebook somewhere. Don't ask me where because I honestly don't care. I read through all your "Rules" I was posted in this discussion and none of them were the case. Just one after another. And always there is just someone using - or should I say abusing? the next rule to revert it. Many pages here on wiki about games contain inofficial updates and stuff, things which are fact for the game. I really would love to know the real reason why facts are here obviously ignored. What the heck is so wrong to mention a community page, to state facts, to help to keep this game alive? My page, my patch is noncommercial and of no benefit for me. It also doesn't contain personal stuff, its all for the game. So WP:COI doesn't fit also.

"Revert to factual version without unreferenced qualitative claims." In the history - what a bad joke. You reverted it to your personal opinion, not to the facts: http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=7830501#post7830501

--Smirftsch (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

perhaps a formal statement on the forum by one of Epic's developers should suffice. They created the game so who is likely to be more official than them? Texcarson (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate because of WP:RS primary sources - it is not stated that the game had the Linux port, instead, it means that the game now has the port. That's a basic fact and it cannot be denied. --78.56.57.236 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not officially it doesn't... As a friendly suggestion - you know an article on the unofficial version of Unreal with info about the patches and the Linux release (all the stuff that you're having difficulty putting in here) would probably be a valid article in it's own right, and can be linked from this article.... --HighKing (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial updates

Article: "Epic Games made the source code available externally in an effort to maintain the code." This is at least vague and very likely to be interpreted incorrectly. The source code is not available publicly, Epic Games only gave Smirftsch of OldUnreal.com access to the secret source code with the sole purpose to fix bugs and create a new patch. This patch is currently under construction under the name Unreal 227. I suggest the article should be updated to reflect these changes. I will not burn my fingers by editing it myself, because changes to this article are a very sensitive matter. 82.176.182.253 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (Signed by Hyper.nl, hyper.dnsalias.net)

Sounds good. Can you provide a reference for this? --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some info can be found [http ://www.oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html here]. A full, third party reference of a big gaming source what you may be looking for is something I cannot find. This may be caused by the fact that the patch is still in beta and has been in development for a long time by a small group of developers for a relatively small community. If still needed, some third party reference to this patch can be found at: Unreal.com Small note for upgraders at The Unreal.com homepage. Added by Epic because old Unreal clients point to this URL. | Epic's official forums, Question posted by StalwartUK, who is also editing this article. | UnrealSP, news archive, "Testrelease of Unreal patch 227!" dated 28/Dec/2007 | Hyper.nl Unreal Services news page, "Unreal patch 227 public beta released" dated December 27, 2007. Please note that this is my own website. | Liandri Archives, BeyondUnreal, Unreal article, section patches mentions OldUnreal's work as well. 82.176.182.253 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC) (Signed by Hyper.nl, hyper.dnsalias.net)

--83.236.246.35 (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Reading all this I'm just wondering why this Ham Pastrami guy still seems to be allowed to edit this article and change it into his personal opinion completely disregarding all discussion and different opinions from other moderators here. Its a shame for Wikipedia in my eyes.

Disregarding what, the lengthy discussions above that resulted in editor and administrator consensus to remove the links? What's your strategy here, that maybe if you're absurd enough, your wishes will come true? Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Talking about absurd, just removed some link to a page where pirated version are open offered for download, why did no one notice that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.248.14 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding all arguments you don't like above. You just interpret your own rules always for your own needs instead of objectivity. Only trusted sources following your argumentation are commercial magazines. So basically things are only true if someone got paid? Hurray for wikipedia. This way its easy to ignore everything because its almost sure that none of your so badly wanted reliable sources (reliable only by your personal judgement of course) will ever report about such an old game again. Someone with enough money here to pay his reliable sources, to make it true? We will buy the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.246.35 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you disregard all arguments you don't like, which are the majority of the ones given above. You want to press your own personal interests despite not having any objective sources to back them up. You even admit that no one cares enough to cover the subject without a bribe of some sort. I am acting in accordance with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies, which was agreed upon by a consensus of editors. You keep talking about me as if I was the one who got shot down by the community. That was you, not me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't really disagree with the post above. It really looks that way- because any community pages which are still reporting and taking care about our old game is not considered here although a lot of these have been mentioned here. Anyway, regarding HighKings comment: would be a link to our oldunreal wiki maybe valid? (wiki.oldunreal.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirftsch (talk • contribs) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay?

Should this article have a gameplay section? Does it need one? I was a little surprised to see a lack thereof... --PenguinCopter (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

227f

I re-added a statement about the 227f version to the infobox, seeing as Unreal Tournament mentions version 451 which is unofficial as well. Texcarson (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that doesn't count either here. And my question about adding the wiki above is completely ignored also, although even proposed by Highking.--Smirftsch (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The 451 version shouldn't be in the UT infobox either, and I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? Is that your way of discussing things? Not even answering a single question?! Ignoring a valid question although even proposed?! Nice to see how things are handled here. And you are wondering why people don't understand what you are doing here.--Smirftsch (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot. It is me you blame for all posts and the disagreements here. So its ok to ignore me. --Smirftsch (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Patch 451 is so widely used most people think it's official Most servers for UT games are using it. What more is needed ? As for patch 227, it has been decidec by epic to allowed it and there are official sources to prove it. What's missing ? 93.10.194.204 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A brain inside these people's head. UnrealCoopNet (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What's missing is reliable sources to verify what you just said. This is the same thing that has been asked for ever since the first edit conflict, and has yet to be provided. You made the claim that sources from Epic exist, and yet did not bother to provide one. Did you even try to research it or did you go straight to fabrication? Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can verify that the patch exists by going to oldunreal.com - or see that http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=531232 Epic approves and acknowledges the existence of the patch. UnrealCoopNet (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Existence" is not being disputed. It is also not sufficient for inclusion, as discussed previously. Which of the posters in the thread you linked is a representative of Epic Games? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WarTourist obviously, Senior Producer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.214.37 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• WarTourist is Jeff Morris, senior producer of Epic Games. His site is http : // jefftown.com . So, he's a representative of Epic Games. His claims on the Epic forum are valid and sourced. Lalalele (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. So - over a year since it started - do you think we can put this 227f thing to bed? I'm tired of seeing the "leave it in/take it out" edits showing up on my watchlist. Unreal is a great game - i'm playing it again, thanks to GOG - but is it worth all this he said/she said crap?Johnmc (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The patch alone would have been enough proof if that's the question again, without the permission and the sources this patch would have never been existed. The forum link is already years old and was disregarded completely again and again also.

That almost any other game, like:

Doom_(video_game)#Clones_and_related_products

or

Descent_(video_game)

or

GoldenEye_007

or

Quake

just to name a very few out of dozens titles here at wikipedia have references to ports, to related projects and 3rd party expansions was disregarded too, is out of question also.

Asking for "reliable sources" are for many of these mentioned projects and ports the same as here, just the community itself because outside of the community the game is of little interest anymore. That Wikipedia:RS can't be fully applied for (such) video games because of this out of the situation - logically existing - niche disregarded also.

Also with his statement Ham Pastrami admitted that he was not willing to check who made this forum entry to even check if it COULD be taken (although forum entries are rarely used, I know) and that over all that time.

Pure arbitrariness. Don't expect it to change now. --Smirftsch (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FUCK, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN

LEAVE THE MENTION FOR 227F THERE IS A SITE DEDICATED TO IT CommanderWorf (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all getting frothy-mouthed in here re: 227f

Wikipedia:RS states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."

In this case, the primary source = oldunreal and statement = patch 227f has been released. All the edits have ever done here is confirm the existence of the patch - no promotion or hyping. Criteria fulfilled.

Somewhat cryptically however, the oldunreal website has been blacklisted, so direct quoting is not possible - however, the http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=531232 link fulfils the criteria via secondary source as well. a_man_alone (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldunreal is not a reliable source, and even less so if blacklisted. Now, the forum thread qualifies as a self-published source, and forum threads are specifically mentioned as unreliable in the WP:RS guideline. The thing here is that if no independant, notable third-party websites or media have covered this patch, it is not notable enough to be mentioned. If, for example, the developers show an interest in the patch in an official capacity, then it's a different story. For example if Epic Games has had a role in developing it. Check the previous discussion above where User:Ham Pastrami put it quite well. Eik Corell (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldunreal is a reliable source under reliable source - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." oldunreal is the source of the patch, hence primary source establishing existence of patch. I've queried the blacklist thing.

Question: Why do you believe oldunreal fails the primary source supporting a specific statement tenet?

I've read all of the above, did so before responding and frankly am a bit put out that you seem to have assumed that I haven't. Ham's comments seem mainly orientated around WP:COI and a concern over meat/sock puppets. He puts forward a couple of good comments (imo) such as the [[6]] comment, but I read that with a smile, because even if the info were added to the wiki there, editors would then want to include a reference to it here eg "227f has been released, see xyz for more details" - that sort of thing. Far better to simply state that a later version, 227f is available to those who wish to seek it out.

Other comments of Hams are unfortunate, ("You should realize that encouraging your friends and forum-goers to post on your behalf does not absolve you of responsibility for their actions. Again, see WP:MEATPUPPET") as they seem to rather imply that anybody posting in favour of 227f's inclusion may be a meatpuppet, SPA or have been prompted to contribute by Smirftsch. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, however comments like that have a tendency to plant the seed in the mind, and get wheeled out whenever an accusation needs to be thrown about.

I agree that there is a dearth of secondary & tertiary corroboration regarding 227f, however as all we are doing is establishing the latest patch available (whether official or not) in this case primary source should be sufficient. a_man_alone (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning that the source code has been selectively distributed, using that forum post as a source MIGHT work, but I haven't seen any reliable coverage of the 227f patch to warrant mentioning that specifically. As for 227f having been released, there are two problems: Oldunreal is not a reliable source for that because it is an unofficial fansite with no editorial oversight. Second, the notability of the patch itself is what hasn't been established, not whether it exists or not. As far the whole meatpuppet issue, as I understand it, Smirftsch admitted to this; the MSN thing. The rest of the text I can't really wrap my head around. Like the other previous arguments for keeping 227f, it seems to be largely incoherent ranting. Eik Corell (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent ranting? I'll grant you that frustration is starting to set in, however, I don't see any incoherence or possible confusion. Please quantify and I will try to re-iterate differently. a_man_alone (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No no, not you, I meant the earlier arguments by other editors further up the page - I don't see any of them listening to the arguments they were presented with, but rather just rambling, which is why the unofficial patch info is back and we're having this debate again - They didn't really listen the first time, or the second, or the third time this debate surfaced. Anyway, I've asked for some assistance with this issue regarding the forum post by WarTourist, because I've run into forum posts by official developers being used as sources before, so I'd welcome a chance to get this rectified once and for all. By the way, I should have linked one specific policy before - WP:V. The opening paragraph specifically applies here, and that's what I was on about with the reliable sources stuff - It needs to be verifiable through use of reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm starting to get a feel for this particular issue now. There seems to be (amongst other things) a clash of policy - WP:V versus reliable sources. I still maintain that under reliable sources a primary source is allowable in this instance, however, it seems that it's tempered by the lack of supporting evidence to make it to secondary stage - and from a bit of research it does look like oldunreal have not helped their case much. Elsewhere an editor has stated that specifically relevent parts of oldunreal may (not will) be whitelisted if they pass muster, but from reading up on this whole issue I'm not that convinced anymore. I think I'm going to sit the rest of this one out - although I'll be interested in the outcome and will leave these pages on watch. a_man_alone (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Me again, no I won't start with any discussions again. See, I'm seeing this all from some logical point of view. I know all the rules here and I read all the WP's.

In the beginning I was claimed as meatpuppet because I became involved, not because I started it and you see that many editors re-add the links again and again. But anyway, my lack of skill to express myself in a non native language seems to be an unbreakable barrier for me to discuss this out. But maybe you can explain some things to me:

1. Why are comparable links and information like that for many other games absolutely OK? And don't explain me these have more of these "reliable sources", I checked a lot of these myself, they have pretty much the same status, some don't even have anything except their plain existence and no page with a history of over 10 years community work and and and...(don't wanna repeat it again), the least I would expect is, that for any other game would be done the SAME!

2. Why do you even expect one of your so called "reliable sources" will ever report about such an old game again?

3. Why are wrong and/or outdated information (f.e. the Linux port) placed and preferred although many editors agree that it is wrong? What is the point for some Encyclopedia to remove correct information just because its not popular enough to be mentioned in for your commercial magazines and web pages, because other sources seem not to be reliable enough obviously.

Sorry for me being that rough but this is just plain wrong whats happening here. And do me a favor, if you want to answer please spare me with more WP's, its clear that WP's can't answer that.--Smirftsch (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldunreal is not a reliable source for that because it is an unofficial fansite with no editorial oversight

What makes you come to this conclusion? The content is well chosen and sorted. No spam, no ads. The forum which is the base of page is watched and edited carefully by a lot of people. What else is editorial oversight?

Also I'm wondering why the questions and comments by Smirftsch are ignored. It definitely is valid for a lot of other articles and I'm really eager to see why it isn't here, meaning:

Anyway, I've asked for some assistance with this issue regarding the forum post by WarTourist, because I've run into forum posts by official developers being used as sources before, so I'd welcome a chance to get this rectified once and for all.

Oldunreal is a fansite. Fansites are not reliable sources, because given their nature as unofficial community sites, they don't have editorial oversight -- no fact checking. Furthermore, as sources, forum postings are specifically discouraged, because they're what's called self-published sources. So the issue here is not about spam or ads. As stated, a forum has no editorial oversight - Anyone can post anything and claim that it's the truth, that's why forums are specifically mentioned as unreliable.

You should refer to the above debates/shoutmatches - This has already been discussed in great detail, which is most likely why people refrain from taking it up again; People who have been for the inclusion of this link have not really listen when arguments are presented.

Now about that forum post being from a developer, I think I got a response when I asked around about it. I'm gonna try again and see if I can get some clarification on this issue. Eik Corell (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see some moving here. To argue that people are not really listen is neither true nor right. This may apply for some but definitely not for all.

Many editors plain disagree and it has been discussed in great detail but there is no refrain because of the fact that there is no real explanation or obvious reason why some arguments from some editors are valid and some others just ignored.

Also I actually don't know why I'm always ignored instead of given some answers to my questions? What am I blamed here for? I didn't even touch the article in all that time. I didn't insult anyone, I didn't abuse anyone. Do you think it is me who is again putting up the links or what the hell is the reason? So why are no answers here to my questions above?

and for curiosity- what makes Oldunreal an inofficial community page? Also if not taking the forum- the regular content and the wiki are having editorial oversight. Another thing I don't understand is why some commercial link never seem to cause any discussion- whats the point of "Unreal - Tux Games"? It's valid because they sell it, but 227 is not valid because you can't buy it but its free for download?

Don't take this as "attack", I just expect some answers and I'm really getting embittered because all I see above are many agreements but also as many disagreements. Opinions if you wish. It is absolutely not obvious why in this case the side against it is chosen. --Smirftsch (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This has all been explained countless times, all throughout the talk page. You yourself were even part of most of these discussions where many different editors explained the reasons to you. Also, Oldunreal is not associated with Epic Entertainment or any possible subsidiaries, that's what makes it unofficial.

Now, questions:

1 - To answer this, I need to see the article you're talking about - Name an example where this kind of info is acceptable and I'll explain.

2 - We don't. This is a problem with many older games; that they had their era of fame in the video game magazine era. In those cases, those are the reliable sources that are often cited.

3 - I don't understand what is wrong with that info. That info is preferred because it has at least one reliable source, that being the gamespy article. Correct information is often removed per the WP:V policy. As it says: Verifiability comes first, not truth. Information added to articles MUST be verifiable. The point is to keep standards high. If this policy was not in effect, and people could indeed just add anything whether it was true or not without citing a reliable source, the whole "Wikipedia is not trustworthy because anyone can add anything" wouldn't just be a complaint that holds water regarding certain articles, it would hold true for the entire project, which would spell its immediate demise as the source of information that Wikipedia is.

The reason your input here might be ignored or taken with a heavy grain of salt, I would imagine, would be because your contributions have so far have revolved around getting your own site here listed, which is a conflict of interest, and because the other people who have arrived here are arguably associated either with you or your website. This is what was meant when meatpuppets were brought up in the earlier discussions -- That the users you claim disagree with us are part of the website you're trying to add. When claims like a consensus not having been reached because someone brought a mob to rabble their case, that's the kind of thing that will make regular editors here not assume good faith. Eik Corell (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 1. I named some examples above already quite some time ago. It applies for many Video games it seems.

2. There is of course the problem within that 227 is far younger than the times the games was popular enough to be mentioned.

3. I'd understand that if really no one is able to check it. In this case my logic refuses me that, because that something is claimed to be not verifiable although anyone can just simply test it as a matter of fact? This argument was given also by some editor and ignored later again - but its at least some explanation. Wrong with the info WHICH WAS THERE before I edited was that there was never a Linux port, I already changed that. It doesn't however explain why this Tux Games link is valid.

And your latest comment makes almost cry. I only once touched this article before all this discussion and never again after that- except this wrong info about the Linux port now and just to associate EVERYONE with me or my page because the link is re-added is a bad joke, as if I'm responsible for everyone who does that, who do you think I am?! You can't just claim everyone who disagrees a meatpuppet or associated with me or my page. Why do you think am I trying to discuss this here? My intention behind is just that I want to keep the game alive, that's why I'm doing this at all here, I have no gain or profit from it. I even didn't visit here unless this plain wrong information for this "Linux port" was added and someone mentioned it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirftsch (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After now checking here by I also noticed that you removed the link to the appdb at winehq. What was wrong with that? The appdb is widely known and acknowledged by any Linux user. While the commercial link again is still there. --Smirftsch (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC) As explanation now that I have some time: Wine_(software) Linux_games#Wine_Gaming --Smirftsch (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

copy link for Oldunreal.com from other wikipedia.

as Oldunreal.com is mentioned/linked in german, french, italian, dutch wikipedia it seems strange not to mention/link it in english wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali chaudhry (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The non-English versions of articles are usually translated versions of the English one, hence you often see a lot more, well, crap on them. Oftentimes, people will just copy the English version, and if the English version is full of bloat, the translated one will be, too. It's a recurring problem, and I just kind of leave those articles outside the English version alone. Eik Corell (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your arrogance. Meanwhile, with no flagged revisions and with more vandalism and trolling than ever, this wiki is crumbling on itself. Hrotovice (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for 2.27 patch found (finally)

hi, recently Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which is an accepted reliable secondary source according to WP standards see WP:VG/S, has mentioned the 2.27 patch. Hope this will finally solve this long standing dispute. cheers and merry xmas Shaddim (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be now OK to mention that there is a native Linux port? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.66.62.58 (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

creature AI

I think the article should mention that the AI of enemies was quite advanced for the time. As far as I know this is the first FPS game where an enemy would dodge the player's missiles. Some enemies could also feign death, for example. Fighting the Skarj warriors for the first time was quite an astonishing experience - it almost felt like playing against a human in a multiplayer match, due to the constant movement. Such bot behaviour wasn't seen before the game's release, so I think it needs a mention in the article. Mike 85.222.87.53 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the AI isn't something special, even for that time. Descent 1 also has encounting enemys, wich will dogge your weapons. Play it on insane or Ace and you will have much tougher enemys than in Unreals Godlike-Mode. But the Unreal-Engine has some advantages, too. The enemys are predicting where to shoot at an moving enemy (easy to implement, in Descent 1 it would make the game unbeatable ^^) and one of the first good pathfinding systems, wich wont let enemys stop at an corner. (Some exceptions, sometimes small Objects like Boxes or so will block them) Even they will leave an infight if they are on low health. Im not shure if Unreal already has an implementation of the indiviual character AI-options Ut99 has. (Aiming/ Agression etc) But even Descent has something like this, if iam right. Many Mechs in Descent don't behave like the same on later levels. Some are agressive and will aproach you (Higher difficulty will result in more agressive decisions and less defence tactis from enemys) The AI of Unreal is, like i said, not bad, but not outstanding in any way. Even if it feels so. 87.139.55.127 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Descent was not a real FPS; it was more a combat flight sim, so that game doesn't count. The AI in Unreal *was* something special at the time for a FPS, and I personally remember reading reviews back then that gushed about it. But to avoid original research, here's 5 cites for you from reviews at the time, and I've *purposely* selected cites that directly mention the AI being better than other shooters of the era. (1) http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/unreal/review.html = "One of Unreal's best features is the enemy AI. In other games, the logic of certain creature actions seems to be linear and undefined. In Unreal, each opponent attacks with its own style, using a combination of melee and ranged attacks." (2) http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/814/unreal/ = "There's been much hype around Steven Polge coding the AI (he created the Quake Reaper Bot), and the team claimed that fighting them would be like fighting human players. Well, not quite. But the Skaarj (and variants) do duck, strafe, roll, dodge, flank, and fire better than any enemy AI seen before in a shooter." (3) http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/unreal-tournament = "One of the most notable features of UT is the incredibly good AI. [...] To put it bluntly, no one has ever programmed a better AI in a FPS". (Note: Unreal Tournament uses the same engine as Unreal). (4) http://www.moddb.com/games/unreal = "[with] monster AI (that's Artificial Intelligence to you) from Steve ("ReaperBot") Polge, your adversaries will be smarter, meaner, and more alive than any you’ve ever faced." (5) http://www.gamegenie.com/reviews/pc/napali.html = "Back when Unreal debuted, the AI was revolutionary". Conclusion: yes, the AI coding definitely *was* way ahead of other FPS games at the time, and I agree that it should be mentioned in the article, as it's a pivotal point in FPS history. SJ2571 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If, for example, a Skaarj was accidentally hit by a Tentacle during a fight, it would attack the Tentacle (usually if the player was no longer "available"). I think it was the Skaarj Berserkers who would even start fighting among themselves. -- megA (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but Quake's monsters would fight amongst themselves like that too, and Quake came before Unreal. WPWatcher (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

I added an External link section at the end and included one link to UnrealSP.Org. The section and link were soon deleted. I've read the wiki on external links and I'm trying to understand why the link was deleted. Is it because UnrealSP.Org is a fan site?Jdmaloney (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. WP:FANSITE, #11 specifically, deals with this. Eik Corell (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jdmaloney (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Third party

The "third party" who received the code are the people behind unrealsp org. Hrotovice (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to the talk page. JuanJose (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic MegaGames

Epic's full name when the game was published in 1998 was "Epic MegaGames". Per the Epic Games article, the name change took place in 1999. You can even see the purple Epic MegaGames logo in the box art attached to this article. I've changed the opening paragraph and the info box. 63.126.72.25 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Peacock wording much?

"Unreal is known for boosting the expectations of 3D graphics considerably. Compared to its peers in the genre, such as Quake II, Unreal brought to life not only highly-detailed indoor environments, but also easily the most impressive outdoor landscapes ever seen at the time."

I'm seeing this sprinkled every so often through this article. That kind of tone is okay for editorials, but this is an encyclopedia. On top of that there are many paragraphs at a time without any citations to be seen. I'll be adding a cleanup tag soon. -Miranda (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this wording shows up in info that a video game article is not supposed to have, anyway. Hence, I removed the stuff that immediately stands out. Eik Corell (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence?

SiN was released on the same year Unreal was released! =O --68.103.165.33 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So was Animaniacs: Ten Pin Alley - it's a conspiracy! Seriously - what's your point? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Prisoner 849

The protagonist of this game seems to vary in name and gender, depending on the player's choice. But, my question is this: As far as the developers at Epic Games are concerned, is Prisoner 849 canonically (as in officially) male or canonically female? Just curious, because in this article, the character is described with female pronouns. DJ Autagirl (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A default install of all the unreal versions features the "Female One" class, with the default skin of "Gina" as the player for both online and offline play. If you change this in player setup, that is what you will play as in single player and multiplayer. It's a commonly held belief by the unreal community that the player (Prisoner 849) canonically is female. That, and the alpha/beta versions follow that trend where in some versions you can only play as Gina, because there is no player selection even implemented. ColorblindArtist (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. Someone told me that in the single player mode of this game, the character's skin cannot be customized. DJ Autagirl (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That is no reason to conclude the player is female. The skin pakks are female 1, female 2, male 1, male 2, male 3, skaarj player bot, arranged alpha numerically. Reason female 1 gina is thought to be default character is because her name comes first female 1, otherwise there is no proof at all and multiple dead bodies indicate Gina to be dead. So lets not draw conclusion of player's gender without proof, it is entirely customizable and ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked Man 808 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I just beat the game (Steam, Unreal Gold 226). I didn't realize there was even options to customize the player until reading this. So, there's two things happening here: 1) the default character is female and 2) the character is customizable. In the article, the plot for the base game is written as gender neutral where the plot for the expansion is written as "him." For consistency sake, the expansion plot should have its pronouns changed to neutral. "Him" doesn't make sense considering "him" is not even default. Perhaps it should be written like Saints Row where there's no need to specify the gender of "the Boss:" just refer to the player as exclusively "Prisoner 849" or "the prisoner." The prisoner is never really free. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

On closer inspection, there was only one instance of "him" in the article and it was part of a wordy sentence. Decided to clean it up substituting the gender neutral "their" in the process. I think, in regards to Prisoner 849, it now completely gender neutral. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Gender selection

Already being forced to re-add the gender selection the 2nd time, due to arbitrary not verified changes here a short explanation. Even initial Unreal version 200 offered a model selection when starting a singleplayer campaign. ADDITIONALLY in the classic menu version of Unreal (v200 to 226f) the player setup was put into Multiplayer- nevertheless it allows the selection of the model and gender also for singleplayer purposes. To say it can't be changed or that it would be a stretch just because it's there is wrong in my eyes as well- yet in Unreal Gold UMenu (226b and newer) the menu was named "Player Setup" probably to avoid further confusion about that. It's really disappointing that especially a moderator here does recurrent edits without verifying and this reflects a lot of the previous ongoing edits on this page in my eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.213.7 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about. The singleplayer menu shows no such thing. Check it out: [7] [8]

A player who starts the game today will not see any menu to change their gender when they go to start the singleplayer. To put this into the genre of games where you can change your gender is a stretch when you can only do it via the multiplayer options. Even then, changing the player model only changes the sounds i.e hit pain, and shows the player when they die. This is in stark contrast to, again, the Mass Effect series where player choice has a big effect on gameplay. At this point, mentioning that the player's singleplayer character changes if they change their multiplayer one is giving undue weight to small details Eik Corell (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Curious. I did as the IP editor asked, and installed Unreal - it's always good for a blast, even if it's not NOLF-standard - and when I start a single player game, I'm prompted to choose my player skin ("Digital Representation" as it calls it) which as the IP states includes gender.

I'm using the original release of Unreal, and patched up to 226f. Those Youtube videos are a different version - the video title states "Unreal Gold Edition" which I'm guessing has different startup options.

However, the IP is correct - gender is a choice that can be made at the beginning of the game.

It's a big glitchy under Win7-64, refusing to run in fullscreen, but when it does, them darn Skaarj better be watching out... Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Corell, let your fingers away from things if you have no clue what you are talking about and if you are to lazy to really check. Both Videos show UMenu from 226b (UGold) or newer, which HAS a PLAYER SETUP directly in the Menu as said already and again, which also fully fulfills any criteria of gender selection one can imagine (no, not below Multiplayer). Unreal 200 to 226f opens an additionally player setup screen before the game starts. So yes and AGAIN, it depends also on the used version. I already explained this 2 times and you are not even willing to READ what I wrote already 3 times. Thanks to Mr Riens, though. As for being glitchy with 226b in Win7, try the in the article mentioned community patch 227. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.202.35 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sweeney was an ARTIST on the game too?

Can anyone provide an actual source? Because the guy isn't credited as artist in anything else. -- TVippy  11:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read he only served as programmer, but i'm not sure. Hakken (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

---

• Unreal → Unreal (1998 video game)
• Unreal (disambiguation) → Unreal

– The current primary topic situation with the 1998 video game at the ambiguous title could be seen as a WP:SURPRISE since the series which it is part of, Unreal (series), and the video game engine used for this game and other video game series, Unreal Engine, could be considered just as much of a primary topic as the 1998 video game. However, I do not think that Unreal (series) should be moved to Unreal for a couple of reasons: 1) Unreal Engine has established notability separate from the video game series since it is used in video games not related to the series, and 2) Unreal (series) moving to Unreal may not meet WP:NCVG naming standards since the original "Unreal" series only had 2 games: The one currently at Unreal and Unreal II: The Awakening, though there could be an argument made that Unreal Tournament and its sequels are directly part of that series (even with the article stating in the lead that it is the second title of the Unreal series), but this may be unclear since some sources show Unreal Tournament as a spin-off series and others show it a true part of the Unreal series. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support no primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

• https://archive.org/stream/boot-magazine-vol01-issue01-sept-1996/Boot%20Magazine%20-%20Vol%201%20Issue%201%20August%20September%201996#page/n83/mode/2up
• https://web.archive.org/web/19970606050334/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/091196d.html

Source

• https://archive.org/details/pcmania73/page/n229
• https://web.archive.org/web/20000411175344/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/4686.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/19990427232029/http://www.next-generation.com:80/jsmid/news/4918.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/19961022190207/http://www.pcgamer.com:80/p_unreal.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322191008/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1996_07_pg022.jpg - https://web.archive.org/web/20160322185027/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1996_07_pg023.jpg - https://web.archive.org/web/20160322190526/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1996_07_pg024.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322195616/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1998_08_pg104.jpg - https://web.archive.org/web/20160322194635/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1998_08_pg105.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/19981205073428/http://www.gamespot.co.uk/pc.gamespot/features/unreal_week/

PlayStation port

According to this article by Unseen64, there was a PS1 port in the works at some point, outsourced to a company called Pterodactyl. 2804:D4B:7924:6B00:3193:9A0:222F:CD6F (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)