Talk:Activision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
[edit] NOBs Review
So this user: 68.205.39.116 goes through pages and adds links to (presumeably) their own reviews. There's a link to one of his reviews on the Activision main page now. Are these links of significant importance that they should be added? Should this user really be adding things solely to build themself up? TheMaster42 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cornerstone
The paragraph from the article:
- Activision changed its name to Mediagenic in 1988, in an attempt to capture the business software market. To this end, Mediagenic released Cornerstone (developed by Infocom). The effort was a commercial failure, and in 1992 Mediagenic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This resulted in a reorganization and merger with The Disc Company.
Can't be correct. Infocom released Cornerstone before being acquired (or merging with) Activision. Its failire is why Infocom had to merge with them. See History of Infocom for details. Any ideas on how to fix it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:37, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- How about removing the wrong information? :) Pfalstad 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Darn that Cornerstone game still gives me the chills.
[edit] Notable published titles
Is it just me, or is the list in "Notable published titles" getting too long? How about we create a "List of Activision games" (or something similar—what is the precedent on this?) and just link to it in a "See also" section? We could slap all the games in there and then trim this section to just very prominent titles, such as Quake. What say ye? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Apparently every game we do (I work there) is "notable." There are already lists for some of these series in template form, though, which would at least make it less unwieldy for the time being. --Stellmach 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- For example, I see X-Men Legends and X-Men Legends II recently added back to this list. I like these games. I wish them success. They put bread and butter on my table and everything. But why are they notable in the context of Activision's entire existence across all of time and space? I couldn't really tell you. I think this section really needs a synopsis, for each listed item, of what makes that item notable, and "got pretty darn good reviews" shouldn't make the cut. I would suggest criterea might include:
- Outstanding critical success (e.g. Metacritic aggregate score in the "Universal acclaim" range).
- Industry awards (e.g. Game Developers Choice Awards).
- Identifiable innovations or historical significance (e.g. Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers, and Boxing ... Activision's first games, I believe)
- Newsworthy cultural impact (hard to set a critereon, as many games bother somebody somewhere).
- That said, I recuse myself from making the actual changes, being as I say an employee of the company. --Stellmach 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- For example, I see X-Men Legends and X-Men Legends II recently added back to this list. I like these games. I wish them success. They put bread and butter on my table and everything. But why are they notable in the context of Activision's entire existence across all of time and space? I couldn't really tell you. I think this section really needs a synopsis, for each listed item, of what makes that item notable, and "got pretty darn good reviews" shouldn't make the cut. I would suggest criterea might include:
- I agree they should be removed. I saw that they were added, but didn't know anything about the games, so I didn't feel qualified to remove them. So please remove. As for the synopsis, I think it's a good idea. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if someone can provide some reasoning that's even better than removing items. My not knowing why a game is notable doesn't mean it isn't. But the list certainly doesn't seem very useful in its current form without some kind of context provided. --Stellmach 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's my first pass at the synopsis. My personal comments are in red. Some I don't know enough about. Looks like just a couple of games would survive if I had my way. Like them or not, Electronic Arts really published way more influential titles. Please add synopsis or change mine so we can come up with something to put in the article:
-
- Barnstorming (for the Atari 2600) First published game. Of course it's notable for that very reason
- I'm seeing several sources citing Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers and Boxing (maybe released simultaneously?) as the first Activision games. --Stellmach 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Battlezone:Not very notable. Nothing like the original Battlezone
- Call of Duty I don't know why this is here except that the series is very successful. Did it redefine WW2 games in some way?
- Civilization: Call to Power Civilization rip-off, but otherwise not very notable
- Doom 3 Notable because it was the re-emergence of one of the most successful computer game franchises of all time
- GUN (2005) Don't think this belongs here. From what I hear, it's a good game, but not anything genre-defining.
- HackerDon't think this belongs here. It got some press and did pretty well, but not genre-defining or a hallmark of game design
- MechWarrior 2: 31st Century CombatDon't know this game--there are tons of MechWarrior games. Don't know why this one in particular should be on the list.
- The MoviesGood game, from what I hear. Kind of a Sims rip-off. Got some good press, but not a hallmark game.
- Pitfall! (for the Atari 2600) Considered a hallmark game in terms of game design. Very popular, one of Activision's most successful franchises Per synopsis
- Quake One of the most successful computer game franchsises. Considered a hallmark of FPS games. Followed by Quake II, Quake III Arena and Quake 4
- Return to Castle Wolfenstein Fine game, but not really genre defining. Not really even part of the Wolfenstein 3D cannon.
- Rome: Total War Same as most of above. Fine game, probably pretty popular, but not incredibly notable,
- Star Trek: Armada Same as above
- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater Don't know enough about this franchise to comment
- Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Another not incredibly notable games
-
- Don't know offhand if there are arguments for the others, but Call of Duty, Rome: Total War, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater all would meet my hypothetical "Outstanding" critical success mark. For context, that seems to be the ... let's see ... about the 98th percentile of Metacritic's database at the moment.
- Award-winning games would include Call of Duty (a pair of Game Developers Choice awards) and MechWarrior 2 (and 3) with Origins Awards. --Stellmach 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Tony Hawk's is very notable, I'd say, because it basically started the entire "extreme sports" genre. It was so successful, Activision started an entire brand of "O2 Games" that were all extreme sports games. Although the brand ultimately failed, Tony Hawk continues to sell multi-million units per title. Nowadays, games like SSX Tricky and a ton of budget titles continue the genre, along with Tony Hawk.
-
-
-
-
-
- The Call of Duty franchise is currently Activision's highest selling title each year. Although Medal of Honor really started the resurgence of World War II games, Call of Duty is currently the genre leader. Not sure that makes it survive the cut, but this info's there for you guys to use.
-
-
-
-
-
- I remember MechWarrior 2 being a "huge, hallmark" game when I was playing it back in the day. From what I understand its success kept the struggling "old" Activision alive for a while. I don't have anything really concrete to back that up; I'll try doing some research later on. I agree with your appraisals of all the other titles. TheMaster42 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- This list really needs more Atari 2600 games. Activision was the top of the market during those days and released some of the best games for that system. Some suggestions would be
- Andrzejbanas 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What made those games significant? --Frodet 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I thought Laser Blast was their first game. I was thinking that we might want to add Spider-Man as a notable game. To me, it was the first superhero video game that didn't suck. It actually got everything right, for the first time. It was the first superhero videogame where I actually felt like a superhero, instead of some lame wannabe. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Your argument for Spider-Man being notable, while valid for you, are very much subjective. For instance, have you played every superhero game ever? And there will be plenty of other games who will disagree with any reasoning based on adverbs like suck and feel. Personally, I have a hard time finding any notable games from any publisher the last ten years, but that might just be me. :)
- The titles in the notable list must have some objective arguments for being there. I like the criteria as given by Stellmach above. Maybe it's time for a separate List of Activision games?
- BTW: Activision's first games were Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers and Boxing, all released in July 1980.
- --Frodet 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did some more digging on that. Those four games had catalog numbers AG-001 through AG-004, of which Dragster was AG-001[1]. So if one has to pick one to be first, it's in some sense technically that one. Laser Blast, by the way, wasn't released until the next calendar year, and was AG-008.[2] -Stellmach 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-
So, basically, this is what we currently have that can so far be substantiated in some authoritative way, plus Pitfall, whose claims (both here and on its own page) seem well-founded but still look shakily sourced. Note the shower of citations in the hopes of preventing future list bloat that would distract from the truly notable titles.
- Call of Duty (2004). Critically acclaimed.[3] Game Developers Choice Awards: Excellence In Audio and Rookie Studio of the Year (Infinity Ward); Game of the Year nominee.[4]
- Doom (1993), Quake (1996) and related series. (needs description of cultural impact, citations).
- Dragster (1980). First videogame by a third party publisher.[5]
- MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat (1995). Origins Award: Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game.[6]
- Pitfall! (1982). (needs description of cultural impact, citations).
- Rome: Total War (2004). Critically acclaimed.[7]
- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (1999) and related series. Repeatedly critically acclaimed series.[8][9][10][11][12][13]
Yes, the Tony Hawk list is huge, and I admit I'm biased, but then I can't guess another series to sustain 90+ Metacritics through four sequels. -Stellmach 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to propose some "first" and "last" titles (in addition to Dragster):
- Pitfall! (1982). First Activision title for home computers/non-Atari consoles (May or June 1984 I think).
- Activision Decathlon (1983). First joystick bashing game.
- Ghostbusters (1984). First lisencing deal (?). At the time outselling anything else before (?).
- Ghostbusters II (1989). Last Activision title for the Atari consoles.
- (From memory - need to dig out some references). Thoughts? --Frodet 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Doom was first published as shareware and that's where it got most of it's exposure. Activision only took over as publisher when they started publishing Doom 2 (which was never shareware). I don't think it should be on the list unless it is changed to Doom 2. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SelectSoft
The the line, "In 2005, the company was bought by and later merged into SelectSoft Publishing." seems really suspect. I couldn't find any 2005 press announcement from ATVI having anything to do with SelectSoft or MPS (http://investor.activision.com/releases.cfm?year=2005&startpage=all). Additionally SelectSoft's website doesn't mention anything about owning Activision (although they do publish some of Activision's older titles). Did they really buy them? I'm going to delete this in a few days unless someone posts better information than I have about this topic. - TheMaster42 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Talked with some ATVI employees - they said the above information was not correct and I can find no other sources to say that it is correct. I have removed it. - TheMaster42 08:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Expert Software?
why does "expert software" redirect to this page ?? ~~ wikipedia at domn dot net
- I have no idea. Perhaps an enthuisiastic fan? — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Activision to Pay for Expert Software Acquisition With Stock" (April 2, 1999) --Mrwojo 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- We should put that in the article then. I was wondering the same thing. 69.236.83.191 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Head Games Publishing also redirects to this page. These two redirects should redirect to Activision Value or become separate articles in themselves. WinterSpw 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Activision the first independent game publisher?
According to the article, "Prior to the formation of Activision, video games were published exclusively by the makers of the systems for which the games were designed." What about Softape and Programma International? I'm pretty sure they were publishing games for the Apple II before Activision was formed in October 1979. Applegamer 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, personally, I've never heard of Softape nor Programma International, and I was in the thick of the home computer boom of the late '70s and early '80s. But they are widely recognized as the first independent game publisher, though that claim could use a source. They most certainly are the first independant game publisher for game consoles, but may have been beaten to the punch for home computers, since anyone could produce programs for those systems (not true for consoles). I suppose this could use some clarification in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, "video game" is clearly meant in its sense as distinct from "computer game" here, i.e. software for dedicated game consoles specifically. -Stellmach 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, specifying "video game" addresses the issue I raised. Never heard of Softape or Programma International, eh? Well, that prompted me to create an article on Programma International. I'll do one on Softape next.
Activision always claimed to be the first independent third party cartridge developer, but Gamevision (MB) released cartridges for the TI-99/4 (not 4a) in 1979 (http://www.ti994.com/), so this makes Activisions claim invalid.
- Well, someone better tell the IGDA: "David Crane, Larry Kaplan, Jim Levy, Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead were honored for establishing the first third-party developer of video game software."[14] Unlike the other companies mentioned, Activision is still in business. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, the claim in the article is that they were the first third-party game publisher on a game console. The TI-99/4 was not a game console, but a home computer. - -Stellmach 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Best to change your second sentence though, as it says COMPUTER and Video Games. Also, Pitfall! (1982) is not considered by many to be the first platform game, many think Donkey Kong (1981) is. In truth, Space Panic (1980) was the first ever platformer >>Me 0000<<
[edit] Notable games revisted
Where are we with this list? We were making some good progress, but we seemed to lose steam somewhere. What's the current list? I don't think what's in the article is current, as it includes a lot of titles we already said were non-notable. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I started the List of Electronic Arts games and still am not done with it. I propose we go ahead and start a List of Activision games so we can start removing non-notable stuff from the "Notable" list (plus, a full list like this is always desirable). I don't want to start another project, however, before finishing the EA list. Anyone else want to start it? An easy way is to get a listing from MobyGames or another favorite website, copy & paste and format it for Wikipedia. Lists can't be copyrighted, so it's not violating anyone's rights. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I Would add THPS 2,3,4 Tony Hawk's UNDERGROUND 1,2 Tony Hawks AMERICAN WASTELAND. SPIDERMAN 2,3 Kelly Slaters pro surfer,Shaun Palmers pro snowboarder,the pro wakeboarder game Matt Hoffmanns pro BMX 1,2 DOOM ,DOOM 2
[edit] Location
Some anon user keeps changing the company's location. Their website says they are in Santa Monica, CA (from their website: "Activision's headquarters is located at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405"). The anon user keeps changing it to Los Angeles, CA. Santa Monica is adjacent to LA, so I can see how it's mistaken for being there (and it is in LA county), but one quick hop over to their website[15] shows they are headquartered in Santa Monica. While they do have at least one satellite office in LA, what we should list is their headquarter's location. I'd change it again, but I'm afraid another user would just revert it back. Can we please resolve this? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- We must resolve this. WinterSpw 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It seems to me that Frecklefoot did just resolve it, with a citation. Their HQ is in fact in Santa Monica, and repeatedly changing it without grounds to do so is vandalism. -Stellmach 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I note, by the way, that the same user made a similar change on the Stop & Shop page which is equally easily debunked by checking their corporate web page (e.g. the press release here. -Stellmach 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing it back. I added the cite as a ref to remove any question. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- ARGH! Mark Redekas did it again! He didn't provide any rational or a ref or anything, he just changed it back to LA (and screwed up the template in the process). He just said "Changed correct company location because Activision, Inc. is in Los Angeles, CA not Santa Monica, CA. That true." as if somehow that is proof that they're really in LA. The ref clearly states that they are HQ'ed in Santa Monica. Can't he be banned or something? I'm not changing it because of the three revert rule. Please, this is getting ridiculous. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's a process for these things. I've added a second notice about the right way to go about these things to his talk page. If he keeps it up without citations or dicussing his changes here, then yes, he can be blocked. -Stellmach 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opening Paragraph
Though the quote about Mr. Moore may or may not be true, it does not belong in the first paragraph -- it is a text of opinion, and looks unprofessional in an encyclopedia. User:MsgrCloche 23:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nor is it the case that the statement "may or may not be true," because it's patent nonsense. Moore's move from Microsoft to EA was only announced a few days ago, so unless he affected both EA and Activision's profits retroactively with his magic bad luck powers, I don't see what he could have had to do with it. -Stellmach 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The List
I created the List of Activision games. Please visit it if you're bored and disambiguate/fix some of the wikilinks. Hopefully this list will help cut down on some of the spam in the in-article list. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Activision to merge with Vivendi Games.
If anyone would care to update this, the link is here. · AndonicO Talk 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No cite/NPOV?
"Davis was against the merger from the start and was heavy-handed in management of them. He also forced marketing changes on Infocom which caused sales of their games to plummet." This phrase seems very 'point of view' and is unsubstantiated? (for all I know, could be true but I would think a statement this negative needs some support/reference?) 124.191.2.144 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The videogame business is notoriously bad at predicting what will sell, so making uncited claims about why Infocom sales plummeted seems very dubious. -Stellmach 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wrote that. Sorry, that was back in my "I don't know how to ref, so I'm not going to do it" days. I just added the ref for that. The "opinion" is that of the paper's author. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
3 things im tired of:infinity ward and activision saying they were the only companies making the call of duty series (treyarch and activision for 2 big red one) activision and neversoft saying they made the entire guitar hero series (no just 3 and upcoming 4) and how annoying typing is on PsP Dude867 (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notable titles - Final stage ;)
Well, I've put {{POV}} into the section. It strictly breaks WP:POV and WP:VER. Section should be cited somehow (refs. to game portals, 80s, 90s computer magazines etc.). Until then, it's still our individual judgment and POV-ed, Lothar25 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It sure is. Some research is in order, as you mention. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Activision 02
Activision 02 should be added into the article. They made Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 for some proof of existance —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonX83 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
