Talk:1080° Snowboarding

older entries

this needs more work... and needs some revisions, 1080 plays nothing like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater in my opinion, they are completely different games.. This was one of my favourite N64 games and games in general so I was quite saddened to see only this little blurb written about it Krakko 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can do it on your own, or it might still be short enough to nominate to the GCotW, though it might not be supported because it's on the edge of start. I did a little cleanup for my part.--Clyde (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its better now.--CM (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA comment

The video game cover needs a fair use rationale or the article may be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 22:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad, but taken care of now (of all the things...).--Clyde (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GA

Short but comprehensive, I'm passing it. 凶 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Request for review

Clyde asked me to provide some comments on this article for a possible FAC attempt, so here they are:

• Use the phrase "video game" at least once in the lead so that the unacquainted know what you're talking about.Y Done
• "The game makes available five different snowboarders representing four countries, and up to eight different levels". Reword to "The game features five different playable snowboarders representing four countries, and eight different levels." (Wikilink levels to Level (computer and video games)).Y Done
• "1080° was well received by critics, with a rating on Game Rankings of 90%.[3] 1080° won an Interactive Achievement Award,[4] as well as spawning a sequel, 1080° Avalanche.[5]"

There's too much information in this paragraph, and it doesn't flow as well as it could. Suggestions include:

• Remove the mention of the Game Rankings score (keep the citation), and move the mention down to the "critical reception" section.Y Done
• "Interactive achievement award" could mean anything to the unfamiliar. Either reword to mention that its from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (possibly too wordy) simply scrap the mention from the lead altogether.
• There are also several other things hindering the flow. In short, my suggestion for a revised paragraph is:

"1080° was well received by critics, and won an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. The game also spawned a sequel, 1080° Avalanche."Y Done

Skipping down the the Awards and Legacy section,

• "1080° won one notable award, an Interactive Achievement Award. It was given at the 2nd annual award ceremony in 1999 by the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences for best Console Sports Game of the Year."

As above, simply saying Interactive Achievement Award can be confusing. Suggested rewording: "1080° won one notable award, an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences for Console Sports Game of the Year, awarded at the Academy's 2nd annual award ceremony in 1999."Y Done

• In the next sentence, "appearnce" should be "appearance".Y Done
• "1080° Snowboarding made an appearnce as a trophy in Super Smash Brothers Melee.[25] It featured Kensuke Kimachi, one of the snowboarders from the game." This statement is confusing. Did Kimachi appear in Super Smash Brothers Melee or just on the in-game trophy?Y Done
• "and averaged 73 out of 100." Mention that this statistic came from MetaCritic.Y Done
• "Compared to 1080° Avalanche, 1080° was "well, it. "" No comment. Y Done My bad
• ""as good as snowboarding games got."." Get rid of the second period (not needed).Y Done
• "Game Informer remembered "Looking back, I gave the original 1080° title a 9.25 out of 10 and can fondly remember many sleepless nights with it."" The magazine didn't remember it, Andrew Reiner did. Suggested rewording: "Andrew Reiner of Game Informer remembered, "Looking back,"...etc"Y Done

It's getting late, and I need some sleep. I'll comment on the other sections tomorrow. Hope these suggestions have been helpful so far. Green451 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the points are taken care of or removed. I usually take your prose ideas; they seem quite superior to mine.--Clyde (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Second round of comments

Back to work! I tried to get back on this yesterday, but someone accidentally exited the window I was typing in, and I lost everything. I'll try again today, starting from where I left off:

In the gameplay section,

• "1080° is a downhill or halfpipe extreme sports snowboarding game."

Putting a lower-level descriptor ("downhill or halfpipe") before a higher one ("extreme sports snowboarding game") should probably be avoided. Simply swap the words around, for example, "1080° is an extreme sports snowboarding game with downhill or halfpipe levels."Y Done

• Can you please provide a summary somewhere the beginning of the gameplay section saying how many modes there are? I can't figure this out. I'll skip the rest of this paragraph until this is sorted out.

• Added some more info.

• "In match race, players race in a series of races against AI snowboarders. Players are timed on their speed throughout the level"

The word "race" is repetitive here. "In match race" is a bit confusing at first glance, try expanding the description a bit. "AI-controlled" sounds and flows better to my ears. "Players are timed on their speed"? This makes no sense to me. Either you are stating the obvious (the faster the player goes, the better time they get), in which case it doesn't need to be mentioned, or you are trying to get across something else that I'm missing. My suggested rewording: "In match race mode, players compete in a series of races against AI-controlled snowboarders. Players are timed throughout the level"

• Y Done I like your summary of the idea better, it flows (so it's been added)

• In a related note, is match race mode single-player only? The use of the word "players" makes it sound like multiplayer, but at the same time you say the competitors are AI-controlled. If it's single-player only, then replace "players" with "the player" where appropriate.

• Y Done (I think)

• "if the player loses to the AI". I think "if the player loses to a competitor" works better. Y Done
• "There are three possible difficulty modes in match race: easy, medium, and hard, which increases in difficulty and number of races on each level."

"Possible" isn't needed. The rest of the sentence doesn't flow at all (no offense). The use of "which" and "in" conflicts with "easy, medium, and hard". I think the last "difficulty" should be replaced by "complexity", although I may be wrong on this point. Suggested reword: "There are three difficulty modes in match races: easy, medium, and hard. Each subsequent difficulty mode increases the complexity and number of races on each level."

• Y Done (none taken)

• "Time attack" should be "Time attack mode" (more descriptive) Y Done
• "There are five starting snowboarders in the game"

"starting snowboarders" is the weak point here. Try "Initially, the player can choose from five different snowboarders" instead. Y Done

• "Canada, the United States, United Kingdom"

To flow better with "two from Japan", try "one each from Canada, the United States and United Kingdom"

• "Each has different abilities, and is better suited for different levels or modes"

For stronger grammar, replace "is" with "are" and "or" with "and" ("Each has different abilities, and are better suited for different levels and modes") Y Done

• "Three snowboarders can be unlocked in the game, which is accomplished by completing certain levels and modes throughout the game."

"Which" doesn't work here, and some additional emphasis could help with the beginning. As well, "the game" gets used a lot here. Suggested reword: "Three additional snowboarders can be unlocked by completing certain levels and modes throughout the game." Y Done

• "Eight snowboards are made available for use by any character"

You don't need the word "made", as that's a given. Y Done

• "righty or lefty"

Huh? I don't have a clue about snowboarding, so some clarification would be nice here for people like me.

• Swap the last and second-to-last paragraphs in this section. It just makes more sense not to split up the part dealing with gameplay modes.

I think I explained this now. See how it looks.

I have to go now, but I'll be back with more comments later. If you just want me to make these changes myself without explaining every single one, just let me know and that's fine too. Cheers, Green451 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite flattered that you think my prose is great. I like to think I have good grammar, but for all I know I don't, and it's just going to get ripped apart during the FAC stage...ah. I'll just see what happens there. Green451 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a question with something or the problem is content related, feel free to copyedit or change anything you want (I don't own this article, and I do not want to stop you, nor can I), your help is greatly appreciated.--Clyde (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Final question and comments

Okay, I've gone through and copyedited the whole article to the best of my ability. I just have one question:

• "Speed effects were also a new feature added to the game"

A new feature compared to what? Explain this in the article.

That's it. After you fix that, you're ready to go to FAC. There are probably a few things that I missed, but the FAC people will spot those. I'm looking forward to seeing how this does there. Pleasure helping you Clyde. Once again, thanks for seeking out my opinion. Green451 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I took care of the sentence. I'll nominate for FAC tommorow (several hours from now). I'm too tired now.--Clyde (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Manual

If anybody here has the manual for this game, we can take this to FAC.--Clyde (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference list broken

The list contains the number 23 two times. It's somehow broken. I've tried searching the wiki for this, but found nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAStheLoD (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your browser. Could you be more specific as to what the problem is?--CM (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm currently using Firefox 3.0b3pre (Minefield). Here's a screenshot ( http://pasthelod.ashes.hu/etc/masnak/reference_list.png ) of the problem. I've viewed the page with IE,Opera too, but they look different, then I've downloaded the page with wget and tried to open it with different browsers. Then I've realised, that the numbers are JS produced.. so enough sleeping FTW :) Minefield produced the same effect, Opera didn't show the reference numbers, IE 6.0 (the XP SP2 default) showed the list with the numbers right, altough only in one column. So I suspect this is a JS bug. PAStheLoD (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me; I assume you'll be using a script or something to do it. —Giggy 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I've amended this prefab. text to include that. SIlly me. Tony (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan Game Charts

Japan Game Charts is not a reliable source as it does not comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It doesn't comply with any point described in the guideline. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It uses Famitsu sales data per this. It is reliable. —Giggy 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a personal self-published site. Nothing guarantees that its information is correct. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

Hello, there are many dead links in this article : Metacritic, the reference for Kensuke Kimachi trophy... 95.176.47.164 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they're ok now. Sillent DX (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rottentomatoes.com/g/nintendo_64/1080_snowboarding/overview.php
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-31 22:14:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.interactive.org/awards.php?winners&year=1999&cat=199925#199925
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-31 22:14:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://web.archive.org/web/20070927043449/http%3A//www.interactive.org/awards.php%3Fwinners%26year%3D1999%26cat%3D199925%23199925
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 400 Bad Request
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-31 22:15:03, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://smashbros.planets.gamespy.com/game_ssbm_troph_text.php
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1080° Snowboarding on 2011-05-31 22:15:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent text?

In the Gameplay section: "three race modes (race, time attack, and multiplayer)" - the bolded race should be replaced with "match race"

Then in the Race Modes section it says "1080° has three race modes", but then only goes on to mention the Match Race mode - The Time Attack and Multiplayer modes are missed completely.

I suggest adding something like the following two paragraphs after the Match Race paragraph:

<<The Time Attack mode dispenses with the AI riders and instead is just the player attempting to reach the bottom of the mountain as quickly as possible. A successful ride can be saved as a Ghost that can be used to race against on following Time Attack plays.

Multiplayer is for racing only - tricks do not count. It is 2 player only, but has "immense" view distance and consistent frame-rate.>>

The IGN review that is already referenced on the page can be used as a reference for the above, especially "immense" comment and framerate mention (cite number 31)

Also the G4TV cite number 14 refers to a labelled but empty page - I can't find any other useful reference on the site to replace it with, but reference 15 seems to contain all the relevant info, so 14 could just be removed. Charlesr (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)