This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. 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 articles
A fact from Ace (video game) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that several journalists regarded the low-budget ACE (1985) as one of the best
flight simulators of the time?
@
Hellknowz:, this article is suffering from the disease of overcitification, a rather serious case in fact. It appears that almost every word of the gameplay section can be taken from one or two sources, so I think the article would greatly improve with some triage in this respect.
Maury Markowitz (
talk)
20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Haha, you should see it before I trimmed it. Mostly it is because none of the sources provided all the details, so to write it out coherently I had to pull stuff together from all the different places, which leaves attribution... well, overcitified. Anyway, I trimmed everything down to 1 source per statmenent unless it's something more involved. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK21:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Ace (stylized as ACE as acronym for Air Combat Emulator) is a flight simulator video game developer by Cascade Games for various home computers, starting in 1985—should be "developed", and you should probably just two sentences to describe when the game was released, as right now you could read it as being developed starting in 1985.
That's sort of how it was. They began and released the first version in 1985, then ports to other systems. It was in context of
[1]. I'll reword it that it is a release. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Guy had a pilot's license—For consistency and style you should make sure everyone is referred to by their last name.
Martin describes that an error in advertisement and threat of action by Advertising Standards Agency forced them to also port a Plus/4 version.—This should probably just be reworded to clarify exactly why they were forced to port a Plus/4 version (that an ad mistakenly promised a Plus/4 version.)
Reworded to Martin describes that an advertisement erroneously promising a Plus/4 version forced them to develop it under threat of action by Advertising Standards Agency. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
There's issues throughout the article here and there with verb tenses (for example the last paragraph starts saying "the project would not be possible"; here and elsewhere the "would" auxilary verb suggests present tense, when it should really just be made plainly past tense.)
Reviewers also negatively remarked upon the inclusion of Lenslok color wheel protection system.—you probably need to explain how this system works briefly.
Added ..the game would display a garbled image and the player would need to use the provided colored lens to view the two-letter code.
The later ports to Amstrad and DOS received less critical attention—source for this? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, et al, and could be considered synthesis.
I'll see if reviews talk more about stuff like dogfights or try to find a screenshot with something they do talk about (mid-air refuelling probably). —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
References:
What makes Commodore Horizons and Lemon64 reliable sources? Other citations look to be to fine.
The Lemon source itself is likely not reliable. In this case, I am using it as primary source from the game's programmer (Ian Martin). (I'm also ignoring his self-review of the game.) In prose, I am adding that this info comes from Martin directly where that source supports material.
Commodore Horizons looks like a typical magazine of the time. It was published by Sunshine Books/Scot Press, which had a bunch of other publications. They have a proper staff, editorial, etc. It's not on the high end of magazines, but I'm not sure if it's any worse than other similar mags. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I went through and spot-checked statements cited to current refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 21, and 29.
Current ref one does not support the following statement: only described as an enemy invasion against the remaining Allied forces.
That's probably me doing SYNTH (i.e. absence of evidence). I reworded to just The game is set on the Southern coastland of England during an enemy invasion against the remaining Allied forces. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't think this statement: As the game progresses, the difficulty ramps up making it challenging to finish the game. is adequately sourced to ref 7, which mentions nothing about the difficulty changing over the course of the game.
Yeah, it says "if the flying is easy(ish), then winning if flippin' hard". And the other ref said ".. deceptively difficult to finish", so I'll reword it better. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I went back an reattached the references originally there and trimmed where redundant and adjusted where not. I probably need to take another pass at it and reword any ORness I introduced. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Has it been over 2 week already! Sorry for the long delay. First I had tons of work, then GDC happened, then I got ill... The fates are conspiring! —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply