Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 8 July 2014

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Gameplay of Pokémon (4 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (4 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (7 participants) Carlton Wilborn (5 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants; relisted) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (nom) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) End Poem (nom) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (start) Frostpunk (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Articles that need... assessment (4) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (250) screenshots (8,991) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging

some links about elite 4

Elite 4 is coming (but you'll have to wait)

Game quality has "skyrocketed" - Braben

Mikachu42 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

still on the drawing board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.148.187 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More information

someone should extend this article with all available information. the elite games were the best i ever played. they were more fun as todays mmorpg games. --84.59.88.251 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, Elite was -- and still is -- the best space sim. Ever. Further, to blame the communications industry when the reality is that one is simply being a lazy programmer is the worst cop-out I've read .. like, ever. How much stuff is Braben sending over the 'net? C'mon, Conflict: FreeSpace and the likes did flawless multiplayer space combat in 1997/98. That's pretty soon a decade ago. Ridiculous. --Tirolion 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, it does include all available information. That's why it gets called vapourware.

There is an interesting interview with David Braben over at http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6162140.html?tag=latestnews;title;2 that has some new information that should be put into the main article.

• While I am the first to admit that software can take a long time to develop, I'm just wondering whether there in 2012 will be any interest amongst the general game playing populace -- with an average age of 13 -- in a title that initially came out 15 years before they were born. --Tirolion 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you think the average age should fall? I expect it instead to rise, as more and more people who grew up playing video games don't stop playing when they are adults. -- Bhaak 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Nah, I wasn't implying that the average would fall, I'm merely -- in a roundabout way -- pointing out that there's a 28(!!) year gap between the first and last part in a series. Twentyeight years. Unless there will be some "unforeseen events that will postpone the release date". BENOFTMUE and that, y'know. --Tirolion 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The generally acknowledged average age of gamers is 33 years of age, and it is steadily rising. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18. See for yourself at http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php. I have no idea where the "13 years" statistic came from, I've never heard of that as an average age on anything. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• The only reference to the "13 year average age" is from a Your Sinclair article that came out at the same time as the original game. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

removal

"According to Braben, features under consideration for Elite 4 include "Newtonian gravity", realistic star systems and the "ability to land on planets"."

All these features were in Elite2, I think this is from an interview for that game and must have been added in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, those were also announced features of Elite 4. But who cares. If Braben still intends to bring the game for PS3 and X-Box 360, he has to hurry up a bit. Development was first announced 1998, 14 years ago. If the game progresses that way, it will be difficult to find some of the devices even on garage sales, when the game is finished. --92.79.150.6 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous

So, it has been announced if someone wants to edit the wiki entry?

See this BBC article also a link to the kickstarter page. EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"due to the over-cautious nature of the traditional publisher model"

Is there an independent source for this? The current link (http://www.incgamers.com/2012/11/david-braben-publisher-model-prevented-development-of-new-elite/) quotes the developer himself and that's fair enough but obviously if you're talking about yourself there's an incentive to blame someone else --86.178.194.184 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Braben has repeated the claim many times, but I've not seen any comment by anyone else on the matter. The full explanation makes it clear he doesn't see this as assigning blame to any individual, but a design flaw in the business model that nearly scuppered the original Elite too. I erred on the side of using exact language in the header and explained in more detail in the "Funding" section - would it be better to replace "over-cautious nature" with something like "risk management strategy"? AESayers (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even suggest that publishers were averse to funding the project, merely that Braben's perception was that they'd try to control the direction of it. It's a stretch to go from that to saying that publishers are too risk averse. You could equally blame Braben for being too controlling Deltaflux (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now changed the relevant text to "Having been unable to agree a funding deal with a publisher for many years". The "Funding" section attributes the claim to Braben and mirrors the explanation in the article as best I can. AESayers (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Elite Novels

A number of Elite novels have been confirmed and are under development, related to the successfully funded Elite:Dangerous game. These range from traditional publisher driven books, established independent authors and enthusiastic fans. They will be officially licensed novels, subject to Frontier Developments' approval and become part of the established 'canon' of the game when released.

Is it appropriate to have a section on the E:D page referring to these and links to individual entries for specific novels? Many have established websites and press articles for notability. (Drewwagar (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I considered adding a section about the novels, but couldn't quite see where it fitted - is it a thematic issue that's part of the setting? Will the the books be the primary source for the game's background story? Will knowledge of story-relevant trinkets affect gameplay? I've left it until now because most public details about the books concerned the Kickstarter campaign more than the game itself, which seemed a bit iffy for Misplaced Pages.

This is the only Misplaced Pages article I've really taken ownership of so I can't give you an official answer, but personally I'd be happy for you to put something in and chat about the best place for it to go. AESayers (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: it seems more sensible for this page only to discuss the novels as they pertain to the game itself - something like "Novels set in the Elite: Dangerous universe" would belong on a page of its own (or one page per book if you prefer). I'd be more comfortable with this page containing a section like "Backstory" or a paragraph in the "Setting" section, telling you about the game by reference to the books. If you prefer to go down the route of separate pages, we can look at adding a section to the navbar (or making an extra navbar just for Elite: Dangerous) AESayers (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to create/edit a page and I've also got a vested interest, so probably not appropriate. Regarding the impact the books have on the game, certainly in game events and locations will be aligned with the books. We are awaiting Michael Brooke's 'Writers' Bible' to give a definitive view of where the fiction fits with the game. (Drewwagar (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

It occurred to me today - most people visiting this page in 2013 will be interested in how the game's coming along, so I'll have a go at a "Development" section encompassing information about the design discussion forum, books, bible, etc. AESayers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting Kickstarter comments

This article seems to be stretching a lot of information out of WP:PRIMARY sources, by taking Kickstarter comments from the developers and attempting to interpret them to say something which the sources don't quite say. (For example, a couple of comments about Dangerous having a "sense of scale", no fast-forwarding of time and requiring small hyperjumps is used to source "space flight will be more like the original Elite".) This is WP:SYNTHESIS, and risks misrepresenting the game - this article should really only be using secondary sources, where the developers have made explicit statements in interviews or articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Four months later, I've gone ahead and boldly cut the details which were only sourced to Kickstarter comments and forum threads. Per WP:PRIMARY, Misplaced Pages should not "base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" - it may be acceptable to fill some gaps using primary sources, but a Misplaced Pages article shouldn't try to be a summary of forum postings. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will disagree, and thus why I undo it. That information is NOT stretched, it has been confirmed multiple times. Fact that it uses forum as medium should not make any difference. Fact that there's no secondary sources is due of the fact that game is IN DEVELOPMENT. Some developers don't spread lot of information trough about game except final stages of testing. This is also is a crowdfunded game, and thus flow of information is way different before reaching stable release. Therefore using primary sources is justified here. --Pecisk (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But the fact that the information uses a forum as its medium does make a difference under Misplaced Pages policy. WP:SELFPUBLISH tells us that forums are "largely not acceptable as sources" and that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". If there's not a lot of reliably-sourced information out there, that's just how it is, and it's what the Misplaced Pages article should reflect - editors shouldn't rush to pad the article out with what they personally think is important, from their reading of primary sources.

There's also the problem of WP:SYNTHESIS, as stated above - a knowledgable player sifting through Braben's forum quotes and summarising the separate statements "sense of scale", "real time" and "small jumps" as "hmm, this sounds quite like the original Elite, to me" and writing the authoritative statement that "space flight will be more like the original Elite" could very easily turn out to be wrong. It's also problematic to announce "developers have responded positively when asked about..." from a couple of polite boilerplate "No, although this may be a direction we explore for the future." reddit responses. We should be looking at secondary sources instead of daring to summarise and explain primary ones. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But I will also note that as soon as there's secondary sources, we will update this page. Sorry for being harsh previously, I didn't saw your comment on talk page. We just started to update this page recently, some problems with it are on our todo list to fix. --Pecisk (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the two primary sources I happened to check were both misrepresented by Misplaced Pages, I don't think we're doing the reader any great favours by offering a WP:SYNTHESIS of Reddit and Kickstarter threads. If the article has to be a bit shorter until secondary sources pick up, that's just how it is. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will disagree. Lot of readers look up this article to see if they want to back this game or follow any news on it. This includes clarified list of features from developers, which mostly means using primary sources. We have line of secondary sources which will add as soon as possible, we just started to clean up article in last two days, so bear with us. --Pecisk (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A fan page interpreting and summarising the Kickstarter and Reddit comments, and comparing them to older games in the series, certainly sounds useful to potential backers, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it. It looks like the Wikia FAQ - already linked at the end of this article - is already doing this job, but in the clearer, casual context of "fans summarise forums" rather than the set-in-stone "encyclopaedia states fact". I'd say that a shorter Misplaced Pages article with that link at the end would do readers more of a favour. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that it's a good idea to shorten the article, I would suggest to at least get rid of most stuff in the prior development section, that right now overshadow the whole article. Just keep it brief to to a sentence or 2 should be enough, we don't need every interview and article with Braben about Elite 4 throughout the decade, since Elite: Dangerous is a new game. However I do agree with Pecisk that the forum sources should stay as it's the only info we got. Also a mention of the fact that the game uses a 1:1 scale Milky Way with proper distances should get a mention somewhere. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not concerned that the article is misleading backers by making statements like "space flight will be more like the original Elite" (a Misplaced Pages editor's conclusion from various statements, not an announcement from Braben) and "developers have responded positively when asked about some day including expansions such as player-owned space stations" (sourced to a polite but negative "no space stations, but we wouldn't rule it out" Reddit comment from Brookes) in the authoritarian voice of an encyclopaedia? Both of these seem like textbook misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources ("do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself") - the article is taking small, ambiguous comments, grouping them together and deciding - possibly wrongly - what they might mean for the final game. At the very least, these should be unpacked to quote their sources accurately and neutrally. --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I remember that the old Elite 4 FAQ many years ago mentioned that the space flight would be more like the original Elite and Elite: Dangerous indeed handles quite like original Elite in flight assist on mode (if you take away yaw/vertical/lateral thrusters and backward flying) and supercruise is almost like the Torus drive but with acceleration, I do however see your concern on how it misrepresents the scope of the flight model. About player owned space stations those are confirmed to be coming in an update, see the inflatable asteroid station link in the wikia FAQ HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That link just has Braben talking very briefly about players being able to buy and deploy an "inflatable space station" device - it's not clear whether the resultant station would be "player-owned", or just a way to create a new NPC station. Any time we use a primary source, we should repeat it as directly as possible. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear that it is a "player-owned" space station as Braben said that players will "Buy" the station. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

He says players can "buy essentially an inflatable space station" and goes onto describe a piece of tech that you carry in your cargo bay, and which you can attach to an asteroid to inflate that asteroid into a space station. He doesn't say anything about how that station would then operate - the cargo bay item spawning an NPC station seems as plausible as anything else. We shouldn't second-guess whether or not it suggests that Braben is "positive" about the idea of "some day including expansions such as player-owned space stations". --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was NPC owned, the player wouldn't have to buy that tech. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It could very plausibly be a one-shot device to create a space-station (complete with NPC staff) when you need it, either for emergency repairs or to add a step to a trade route. This seems as likely as it giving you ownership of the station - maybe more likely, given Braben's comments elsewhere about how Elite shouldn't become a "management" game. Point is that we shouldn't be describing what might seem obvious to us from bits of interviews, we should just be quoting them almost directly and leaving it unanalysed. If the article would benefit from some analysis of whether or not the overall interviews suggest that players will own space stations, we need to draw on a secondary published source that gives an opinion about it, we shouldn't make the call ourselves. (And if the gaming press haven't cared to speculate, this suggests it's not of relevance to an encyclopedic understanding of the game's development.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a mention that players will be able to build small stations or better yet, a direct quote is fine by me too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what User:Pecisk's "our todo list" refers to, or what plan editors have to clean up the article, but if the current version of the article contains factual errors about the game (and it worries me that of the two I picked at random to check, both involved the presumptuous interpretation of a source), it may be better to clean it out and build it back up from scratch, using the previous version as a reference. As raised in a section further down, it looks as if all of the Kickstarter references might be broken and uncheckable anyway. --McGeddon (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The forum links and wikia FAQ have more up-to date info anyway and yeah a build from scratch makes a lot of sense, are you up to it? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely out of touch on the new game (the last one I played was Frontier), but sure, happy to help. --McGeddon (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're completely out of touch with the new game, then you shouldn't be editing/removing sections, also this game is classified and recognized as MMO, it has sections on major MMO sites like http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/963/Elite-Dangerous.html and http://massively.joystiq.com/category/elite-dangerous/ and Braben even called it like MMO in a recent interviews http://www.edge-online.com/features/frontier-developments-elite-dangerous-the-rebirth-of-a-legend/ (Note that the article mentions "shards", but that is wrong, they are instances as the devs said so in other sources), The term MMO wasn't used before because it had a negative stigma, but technically it is a full on MMO, because persistent galaxy server http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#Is_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22_an_MMOG.3F also right now the earlier developments section is again overshadowing the whole article, I hope you won't forget to massively shorten that one too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, can we agree on one thing - let's discuss changes here before implementing them. Sure, it is good to have healthy criticism about sources, but this is close to splitting hairs. Article so far didn't have any wrong information, and all it needs is fresh dose of good secondary sources. You McGeddon seem to be little obsessed with references, which is good thing for Misplaced Pages, but if article doesn't have any useful information because sources can be disputed, then I would point out that most of secondary sources on this will also have factual problems, as gaming media is not known for fact checking quality. So if anything big gets improved or removed, let's discuss it here, before doing so. Pecisk (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what's needed is a brief description of the game based on the wikia FAQ: http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#What_are_the_main_features_of_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22.3F with an emphasize on the astronomical detail and dynamic society/economy of the game and the confirmed freeform seamless planetary landings and walking around expansions. We need an even briefer early development section shorted to 1 or 2 sentences based on what's there now. And an updated logo. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Value of Free Updates?

Minor point, I know, but:

"For example, free updates have been promised to backers at about half the value they would demand at retail."

Are they free? What's half the value of free? Does it mean backers get them free... but that others have to buy them for double the price of free? Should I remove the word 'free'? (I genuinely don't know what's been offered with regard to the probably inevitable DLC packs.) - Coldwind825 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Elite

User:HyperspaceCloud makes a fair point in the thread above that "we don't need every interview and article with Braben about Elite 4 throughout the decade, since Elite: Dangerous is a new game" - given that Braben's largely talking about a hypothetical game, this is more about the history of the series than Dangerous specifically. Is it maybe worth making an Elite (video game series) article that can cover this in detail? --McGeddon (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kickstarter references broken?

I've tried clicking through on a few of these to see if they verify the statements they're sourcing, and in no cases can I see a comment that relates to the statement. Are Kickstarter's "comments?cursor=1971711#comment-1971711" URLs relative to the most recent comment on the project, meaning that as new comments are added, the URL refers to a different chunk of comments? --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Dangerous an MMO?

Splitting out the thread above, is Dangerous an MMO? The VG247 interview has Braben explicitly saying "This isn’t an MMO. You’ll be able to load and save your position, and you’ll be able to choose who you play with." User:HyperspaceCloud says that "Braben even called it like MMO in a recent interviews", but the link given doesn't seem to have a direct Braben quote on the matter (just Edge magazine saying they consider the game to be "somewhere between the Dark Souls multiverse and a full-on MMORPG"). We can say that the gaming community considers it to be an MMO, if that's what's happening, but does a clear Braben quote exist? --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an MMO (Note that the article wrongly mentions "shards", they are "instances" as the devs said so multiple times in other sources and interviews) also the grouping or even solo options are additional, they don't take away the from MMOness, that's the reason why the game is classified as MMO on major gaming sites, just like Star Citizen is, please do us a favor and get informed about the game, follow all the links/videos of the MMO section of the FAQ http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#Is_.22Elite:_Dangerous.22_an_MMOG.3F and do a forum search on one of the devs http://forums.frontier.co.uk/member.php?u=22712 on "instance" aka "session" these therms have been used to refer to the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperspaceCloud (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 April 2014‎

Sure, like I say, we can say that the gaming community considers it to be an MMO if that's the case, and if there have been clear statements on how persistent the world will be, those should go in. It just seems striking that Braben has said, in his own words, "This isn't an MMO." - if there's a clearer quote where he says otherwise, where can I find that? --McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, negative stigma, the Star Citizen devs also said in the beginning that it wasn't MMO, but later on when they saw that the stigma wasn't that bad, they openly called it MMO. I think I may have heard Braben say the word instance in a more recent interview. Anyway, all the MMO/Not-MMO mentions in the press is all about Frontier managing public perception, while it technically is an MMO and many other MMOGs work on the same principle. Also that Call of Duty reference can easily be misinterpreted (Blame Braben for misrepresenting his own game or maybe the press, same with the shard thing) as it only applies to the twitch combat and Call of Duty has nothing like a singular persistent evolving galaxy. Also MMO doesn't imply using virtual dice roll, as opposed to MMORPG. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, but here is the relevant part of where David Braben talks about the single galaxy and instancing. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I can barely hear what he's saying on these speakers - would you mind transcribing the relevant sentence and putting it in a "quote=" field on the source you're using? And if we only have a primary source, we should be careful to attribute it in the text, for the full benefit of the reader - "In a March 2014 video, Braben said that Dangerous would be" rather than "Dangerous is". --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Original launch date

We need a source if we're going to declare that "the developer failed to make this target". All we've got in current sources is some vague press stuff about the plan being for the game to be "out" in March 2014, which could mean almost anything, and it's not up to us to decide what that meant and whether the devs failed to achieve it. If Braben specifically promised a full public release by March 2014 and didn't meet that, I assume this would have gotten some press coverage at the time. What have we got? --McGeddon (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"The game is planned to be released on the PC in March 2014. ... We have a long track record of delivering high quality games on time and to budget .... David Braben" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous . 67.223.120.208 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And did the games press have anything to say about this when March 2014 rolled around? --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Braben being late on delivery is hardly news, is it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.120.208 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it's hardly encyclopedia material either. --McGeddon (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Braben said

This has been reverted as "unjustified" a couple of times, perhaps I'm not being clear enough in edit summaries. We can't say "David Braben was unable to give a delivery date, but said "it will be this year for sure"." from a journalist writing "Braben couldn't give me a date but he said it will be this year for sure". The journalist didn't use quotemarks and was paraphrasing, so we have no idea what actual words Braben used.

Writing a quoteless "Braben said it would be this year for sure" in the article here would be inappropriately chatty for Misplaced Pages - I intended "Braben said that the game would be available on Windows some time that year" to be formal but equally definitive. If there's a problem with that wording, what is it? Is it important to somehow convey Braben being "sure"? --McGeddon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class video game articles
• Low-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles