Talk:Van Buren (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Van Buren v. Fallout 3[edit]

I realize I just made this article, but I feel I should defend having an article on Van Buren AND Fallout 3 (Which doesn't exist, but should. I might make it later. The article that is. Not the game.). They are different games, and could end up with different stories, characters, etc. They should be defined as different games. And that's my two cents. Miguel Cervantes 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there will be a sequel, but not from BlackIsle. Bethesda has apparently bought the rights to produce any sequel to the fallout-series. This supports the hypothesis of two different entries (fallout_van_buren and fallout_3) (per9000, non-wiki guy 2006 mar 28) see: http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071004.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.169.146 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 March 2006

Van Buren is vaporware, Fallout 3 is in production by Bethesda AS WE SPEAK. Someone needs to make a Fallout 3 page for the upcoming Bethesda game and move keep Van Buren as a seperate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baardhimself (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 April 2006

Btw, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the game was cancelled. we can only see that in the "categories list". I'd rather not fix it myself as i'm not familiar with Van Buren, but afaik, as the user above me said, fallout3 is being devoloped as we speak. Chaotic Mind 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense that Van Buren and Fallout 3 should be separate articles, as there seems to be (just barely) enough information to discuss Van Buren as more than just a footnote to the Fallout 3 article. However, I also agree that the Van Buren article needs revising, as it seems to have some misleading outdated wording that implies that the original game is still in development. I've added the {{update}} template tag to the article to give the issue higher visibility. --HunterZ 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles[edit]

Why is more than half of the article about cars? They wouldn't have been essential to the game. ~~Lumpy~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.107.1.10 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 May 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout 3 Logo.gif[edit]

Image:Fallout 3 Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout Van Buren Screenshot.jpg[edit]

Image:Fallout Van Buren Screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Shouldn't this article be named Van Buren (video game)? --Mika1h (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Van Buren was the codename, much like how Obsidian, made up of much of the remains of Black Isle, codenamed their projects with state names (Project Delaware being Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords, for example). Van Buren is in the title to distinguish it from the Fallout 3 that Bethesda created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.55.2 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 June 2009‎

Graphics Engine[edit]

Why do this engine's graphics look so bad? Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind both came out before Van Buren was canceled and they both look MUCH better, although that's a statement of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.191.27 (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an early, pre-alpha tech demo, you can't really compare it to a finished game. Ausir (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from the looks of it its based off the Fallout Tactics engine, Fallout Tactics being a fairly rushed and under-nurtured game, it stands to reason its engine was originally developed and intended for Fallout 3 (Van Buren) but as fate would have it, never saw the light of day in its flagship project, just the ugly duckling. As for why they opted to create a brand new isometric 2D/3D hybrid engine instead of going full 3D/first person, thats pretty simple: it was what they knew and it worked. And yeah, alpha demo's always look ridiculous compared to the finished product, unless its been rushed to master like Might and Magic IX :P
Hayaku (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references[edit]

I don't have any interest in working on this article, but maybe someone else could use these:

Some point back to NMA, but that works, because then NMA can be used as a reference in this case. --Teancum (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am planning on developing this to FA :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Looks like we have a clear consensus for this title. Cúchullain t/c 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Van Buren (Fallout 3) → Van Buren (video game) – This isn't really how disambiguators are supposed to work. They're not supposed to just restate what the other part is, such as Football (soccer). At one point, Van Buren was going to be Fallout 3, but that didn't happen. There is a Fallout 3, and it's largely unrelated to Van Buren. From the current title, I might guess this was about a character from Fallout 3 named Van Buren. Since the topic is still part of Fallout (series), there's a common sense case for this simpler disambiguator. BDD (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Van Buren (video game) -- Franchise-based disambiguators should only be used when a more generic descriptive one would still leave ambiguity; for example, Toad (character) is ambiguous; even Toad (video game character) is ambiguous between two subjects, so Toad (Mario) is used instead. In this case, there doesn't seem to be ambiguity with another video game called Van Buren (canceled or not), so I would favor that disambiguator. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a bad idea, but I think the IP response at #Article title above is a good one. Is a cancelled video game still a video game? I guess. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the ambiguity with Toad, by the way? Is it Toad (comics)? I think those Toad (video game character) could redirect to the Mario character with a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the redirects could be targeted to the little mushroom guy and a hatnote to the mutant...
I don't see how the subject of this article can be categorized as anything but a video game. An unreleased novel is still a novel. An upblished song is still a song. The level of commercialization of a product has no impact on what it is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Van Buren (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks interesting, I'll try taking it on. Review should hopefully come soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo (talk · contribs)

Six GA Criteria[edit]

1. Article is well-written.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the game.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead[edit]

-Could a caption be added below the lead image for context as to its usage?

Premise[edit]

-Could a brief bit be added on Caesar's Legion and the Daughters of Hecate? It's unclear what they would've done in the story.

Development[edit]

-Looks good

Later developments[edit]

-"Chinese-affiliated communist insurgents" I'd hyperlink communist.

Overall[edit]

-Article looks great. Just three minor things and this is good to go for GA. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thank you for the review! I've addressed your comments. Regarding the comment about Caesar's Legion and the Daughters of Hecate, I couldn't find any reliable sources that talk about what there roles in the story would have been, but the source I used does have a little bit more detail about them, so I included that info in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Happy to pass! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_Buren_(video_game)&oldid=1222950920"