Talk:Formula One Grand Prix (video game)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Atari ST v Amiga
[edit]One of my memorys of this game is regarding the Atari ST version vs the Amiga version. I recall that the ST had a slightly higher frame rate, especially in crowded scenes, at the time this was explained as the ST had a slightly faster CPU (8mhz vs 7.1mhz?) and because all the graphics were rendered by the cpu the ST version looked a bit smoother. Can't be sure, as it's been a few years. --born against 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
F1GP Utilities
[edit]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tkellaway/gp1.htm is the previous site which contained some superb utilities (like split time, Show car in front & back, Tyre usage, Fuel usage etc). Anybody have any ideas where these utilities can now be got from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.142.146 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Article improvements
[edit]I have added a tone notice to the article. I feel this article reads too much like a promotion and has far too many italics. I will happily return to improve the article when I have a little more time, as I have fond memories of this game! StealthFox 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote most of the article as it is now (one of the first articles I edited), but I agree with your sentiment since then. :) I also don't have good enough knowledge of English, probably. Feel free to correct the waaay too obvious bias. But I would appreciate if some of the more 'inside' knowledge would be retained in some way. That is, it would be a pitty if the article would be reduced to a simple overview of features, a copy from manual text. I don't think that would be very valuable or informative. The huge community and add-ons that surfaced when the game had its "second life" on the Internet, 3-4 years after its release, added a lot to its story. JH-man 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. All the magazine quotes are 100% real so they can be considered FACTS :) JH-man 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have just had a stab at improving the article a bit, let me know what you think. I've also added a citation tag to the magazine quotes section, it'd be great if you could add the mag issue numbers (if you have them) or something as footnotes so they are cited fully. StealthFox 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Much better like this, I agree. I made a couple of small changes because the nuance was not 100% correct, I felt. I should be able to find the exact issues for the magazine quotes. JH-man 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, you know better than me on the multiplayer stuff, I only ever played single player ;) I've taken out the tone tag now that the article is improved. StealthFox 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree the article looks much better now. Good job :) You didn't change any of the sections I created, so I didn't consider any further adjustments myself Samque 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the article is good on the whole, but there are no citations and there's a lot of stuff that needs verification. Please citate it. L337 kybldmstr 07:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll definitely add citations for the magazine quotes at some point when I have the time. And a general reference to the game manual could be included for all the mentioned game features (though one could argue this is implicit). When it comes to the other additional information, this is a bit harder, because of the nature of the subject. Since it is such a young area and so highly specific, there is most probably no paper literature available about the game, or even racing simulators in general, to reference. And magazine reviews are generally too superficial and the result of limited experience to address more in-depth knowledge. So this more in-depth knowledge is mainly the result of a very busy international on-line racing sim community which exploited the game to its absolute maximum, and people hacking the code to write extensions etc. The slow-motion effect, which pointed to the internal workings of the 3D engine (later confirmed by hacking the code) is an example of this. Most of this information is spread over newsgroups, web-forums, motor-sim websites and the tools and game-extensions themselves and nearly impossible to reference reliably...
- So we have a bit of a dilemma here, I guess. Because the existence and dynamics of the game-community itself are (IMO) a very important aspect of the game. Without it, this article would simply repeat the game manual and that would be it? In fact, without it there would not even BE an article since nobody would bother to write it.
- I wonder how this is handled in articles about revolutionary games in other genres. I agree articles about "real world" issues (especially touchy ones) need to be extensively referenced, but I imagine stuff like this could be considered slightly less strict212.153.56.10 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
wrong title?
[edit]the games full title is Microprose Formula One Grand Prix either the title needs amending or it must be shortened to simply Grand Prix to fit with the rest of the series since this is what the boxart suggests
im bringing these inconsistency up on the GP2 talk page too since keeping with the style that should be called World Circuit Racing Grand Prix 2, GP3 and 4 are also wrong since they should be called Grand Prix 3 by Geoff Crammond & Geoff Crammond's Grand Prix 4, maybe im being pedantic but idk im not sure, it just seems wrong to me
Tony Spike (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)