Talk:Ghostbusters: The Video Game/Archive 1

Fanboy Information[edit]

Is there any need for people to keep adding on this article about how the makers of this game prefer the PS3 to the Xbox 360 ? It seems totally pointless to me and has no bearing on this game whatsoever. It only makes the recipe for people to vandalise this section with console fanboys coming on here all the time. So I took it upon myself to delete the section as it seems totally irrelevant.

Well, it just facts, that by now, may 2009, Sony owns all the rights for this game, and it will only be available for Ps3 and Ps2 worldwide. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's June, and all the major resellers are still listing the 360 version for release on the 16th. (i.e. Gamestop: http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=73003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.26.77 (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Is there a citation for: "Each set of versions will have its differences; PS3, Xbox 360 and PC will feature realistic graphics and more of a single-player experience; Wii, PS2 and possibly DS will instead feature cartoon-style graphics and will be more oriented towards multiplayer." The PS3/Xbox/PC being more focused on single player and the PS2/Wii/DS being more on multiplayer seems backwards.

That's only half-true, all versions of the game will feature multiplayer as well as a robust single-player experience, but only PS3 and Xbox 360 will be able to go online. All other things regarding the aesthetics of the individual game versions are confirmed by the developer in this video: http://www.g4tv.com/e32008/videos/26932/Hands_On_Ghostbusters.html PsychoJosh (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like to know what source says that Stay Puft would be a playable character Zigra

Error[edit]

play.com is an online shop selling books, music, dvds, games and miscellanious electronics similar to amazon, it is not a gaming website (Lovefist233, cba to sign in) 90.216.22.4 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part about play.com as play, nor any other reseller has an accurate release date until after the announcement by the publishers. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled.[edit]

http://kotaku.com/5043673/ghostbusters-pulled-from-gamestop I work at Gamestop and I am offically confirming the truth to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.81.199 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cancelled. It just doesn't have a publisher. http://kotaku.com/5030340/ghostbusters-is-not-cancelled-and-will-not-be CardinalFangZERO (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saved![edit]

Ghostbusters has been taken up by Atari. The game should be released in late 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorLayton 388 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change needed![edit]

Sony just bought exclusivity rights http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/05/06/sony-buys-ghostbusters-game-from-atari/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.12.179 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC Requirements from Kotaku Box Scan[edit]

DirectX : 9.0c

Hard Drive Space : 9 GB Free

Operating System : Windows XP/Vista

Processor : Intel Core2Duo E4300 or AMD X2 +3800 (Dual core processors, such as the Intel Pentium D 805 are not supported)

RAM : 2 GB

Video Card : 512 MB (ATI Radeon X1800 series 512MB, Intel G45 Express Chipset, Nvidia GeForce 8400 512MB)

(Looks like the PC version is an un-optimized Xbox360 port) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.219.3 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(A member of the HardOCP forum claims that the game will run on a Single-Core AMD Opteron...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Further proof that Single-Core systems will play the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KM_Sr6fyc0 ...lowest CPU attempted so far = P4 3.0GHZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.234.223 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked[edit]

Today apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.144.156 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Mistake[edit]

In the intro, it states that Walter Peck's original actor will return to provide his voice, yet in a movie included on the PS3 version, it has a brief clip with Willem Dafoe and lists him as Walter Peck. Meanwhile, the model actually looks like the original 1980's Walter Peck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.240.245 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No actually. I own the PS3 game and have just started watching a bonus video and it's clearly William Atherton in the video, even with his name and even with Harold Ramis namechecking him as returned to play Walter Peck. 86.27.61.246 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just rewatched it. He does resemble Willem DaFoe quite a bit though and he's in for just a very small second or two so the W name (when heavily tired) could throw someone off. Honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.245.6 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section[edit]

I trimmed the gameplay section again. It covers the same details, but I just took out some of the unnecessary words and details that belong on a gaming/Ghostbusters wiki. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, the edit was a good compromise. I didn't just revert it to the old version, I took the time to consolidate the info so it said the same thing. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 3rd opinion on the matter. The key thing is verifability. Everything needs to be backed by a source, and especially if you have no choice but to use a primary source like the manual or the game itself, you cannot use primary sources to make inferences on the gameplay or inferences on what the movie is trying to say (see no original research). Keep the Gameplay section as narrowly-focused on the gameplay itself as you can, and use secondary sources to back any references made to the movie. The same applies with the Plot section which needs to also be sourced and can probably be cut down using summary style. In a nutshell, stick with what is in the sources, and don't make any claims past those sources. Hope this helps for both of you. MuZemike 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parade Level[edit]

Shouldn't some mention be made in the Development section about the Parade level that was removed from the final version of the game? BAPACop (converse) 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we need a reliable source that mentions it. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cite the game disk itself? I guess not, or that would already have been done... The problem here is that tons of people have found the level, but no actual reliable source I can find has mentioned it... The closest I could find was this IGN review, which doesn't count because it's a reader review, and not an official IGN employee. BAPACop (converse) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't cite the game disk itself, since it's not actually in the game in playable form. And normally, citing the game disk itself is only tolerated for things like plot points which usually don't have reliable sources associated with them. Games Radar has this article that mentions the parade level as well: http://www.gamesradar.com/ps2/f/ghostbusters-the-harold-ramis-interview/a-20090616115229124025/g-2007111615471925067 --Jtalledo (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of citing the game disk because the Parade Level cutscene videos are still on there... But is the link you provided a reliable source considering he wrote it? It would give only a small amount of information, but it would be a start... BAPACop (converse) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a YouTube video of a tech demo. It should do for now. If you find anything more reliable, feel free to change the reference. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is for other versions of the game other than the DS version?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's for all versions of the game. BAPACop (converse) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I was only wondering since the DS version is the only version I have played where the parade was involved as a mission--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-09-09 assessment for B-class[edit]

Two major things stand out immediately. The need to use the video game review template, and the lack of pictures in the article. Those will definitely keep you from B-Class. More assessments later... --Teancum (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss[edit]

Hoss is not the player character's real name. It's just an ironic nickname given to a new guy like "Slick" or "Kid." See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoss for definitions. Doesn't anyone remember Bonanza? --Jtalledo (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man[edit]

Since the character the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is mentioned in this article and is a continuing character in this series I want to invite anyone interested in the discussion Talk:Ghostbusters_(franchise)#Merge_discussion.2C_Redux where we are discussing whether he should have an article about only him or if all the content about him should be moved to Ghostbusters_(franchise). It would need to be rewritten and additional references would be useful, I've suggested some maybe you can contribute to the discussion and read the article and the other peoples thoughts on the subject. (Floppydog66 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Steam[edit]

The page indicates that it's distributed through Steam, but I can no longer find it on the UK Steam store (although I bought it from there in the first place). I don't really want to change this, since I don't know whether it's been completely removed from the store, or if it's just a UK thing, or if it's only temporarily unavailable, or what. Can anyone shed any light on this? --Thegooseking (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a UK thing. It's gone from the US store as well. I'm guessing that Atari's rights to the property have lapsed, as Ghostbusters: Sanctum of Slime is gone as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it more, it seems only 17 Atari games remain on Steam (for instance, Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 have also disappeared from the store), and none of those actually list the publisher on the page like other publishers' games do. Atari also no longer appears in the "Publisher Catalogs" box. Perhaps it might be more a problem between Atari and Steam than Atari and the Ghostbusters property, but I can't find any sources one way or the other. --Thegooseking (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe, but it looks like references to the Ghostbusters games are removed from the Atari website as well. So, who knows.--Jtalledo (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered developer[edit]

According to later article from IGN the developer of remastered version is not Saber Interactive [1], another source might be useful. Ipr1 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Corps[edit]

The "legacy" section states that Ghost Corps was founded in response to interest caused by the video game, but there is no evidence of this; the source cited makes no mention of the game. 2A02:C7F:E873:B200:8DD3:5969:C05:5F72 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the game, it was the interest in a new film after the game came out (since they got Murray back). Then as the film development continued, Sony established Ghost Corps based expanding the film universe. The game is a few steps ahead of that, but not direct. --Masem (t) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]