Talk:Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel

Weasel Words

I know FO fans hate this game, but "almost all fallout fans" in the opening paragraph is unverifiable. I think it should go completely, but I'll wait a week or so to see if anyone has a verifacation (unlikely, but still) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.14.168 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Advergame

I think that's going a bit far. There's a big leap from product placement to being an advergame. Unless the entire game seems created soley to advertise bawls, then it's not an advergame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk • contribs)

It should be in-game advertisement. I have corrected it. --Voidvector 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan reaction

Shouldn't there be a section in this article which covers the fan reaction to Brotherhood of Steel since it was pretty major and is even mentioned at the end of the game? Wolfman Walt 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there probably should. The trick, however, is to make sure it has a neutral point of view. Plus, we need to make sure sources are cited. And, having never played the game, I didn't know about it being mentioned at the end of the game. Would you care to elaborate? Miguel Cervantes 15:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at the end of the game, I believe it had a message that said something along the lines of "Thanks for the memories" and then linked back to both Duck and Cover and No Mutants Allowed in a response to the fan reaction, especially of some of the more critical members such as Roshambo, Killzig, and others. There were afew articles at Duck and Cover about the game, including one written by yours truely...though I think that might be self referential, as well as being poorly written. On the other hand, I succesfully predicted Interplay's demise after looking at their stocks. Regardless, the two articles that Miguel Cervantes listed are a good start, but I think it may be important to note that despite getting getting some decent reviews according to Game Rankings, the game sold very poorly to my knowledge, most likely due to Interplay's alienation of it's fanbase. Ofcourse that's more conjecture then I'd like and obviousily doesn't belong in an encyclopedia until further substantiated. Wolfman Walt 07:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start might be 27 Things about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel over at Duck and Cover. A couterpoint might be the IGN Review, which says "If you want a good adventure to have with a buddy, F:BOS is a good choice even if it does feel a bit rushed." Or Team Xbox , which said "Overall, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is a solid RPG/action title worthy of accolades." Miguel Cervantes 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reaction refer to both Fan and Critical reception? Especially since the latter is far easier to quantify and provide clear sources? Basically this page needs to acknowledge that this was considered to be a pretty terrible game by everyone... very relevant information for both those considering purchase and those interested in its role in the Fallout series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQpierce (talk • contribs) 17:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I realize that wikipedia is not a review site, but many other PC and console games have a "critical response" section. The fact that this is game is infamously bad (indeed, often used as an example of how to ruin a franchise) it would be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.63 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried a few times to add a section telling about how the fan reaction to this game was negative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14c:ce83:89fc:9444:79f2:c1c0:e700 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that this section is 8 years old, from 2010. At the time, this article had no reception section at all. It was later added. We have to use reliable sources (See WP:VG/RS for a list of vetted video game sources). There's probably several more reviews from reliable sources that could be included and expanded from. But fan reaction cannot be added unless a secondary reliable source covers it. We can't quote things like Metacritic user scores/reviews, other Wiki-style sites (that anyone can edit), Steam reviews, forums/reddit threads, etc. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Screenshot

How was that screenshot taken? It looks better then then the xbox or ps2 version, is it using some emulator? Uselesswarrior (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106162720/http://www.gamespot.com/fallout-brotherhood-of-steel/reviews/fallout-brotherhood-of-steel-review-6086601/ to http://www.gamespot.com/fallout-brotherhood-of-steel/reviews/fallout-brotherhood-of-steel-review-6086601/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Source

• https://www.eurogamer.net/the-fallout-game-that-time-forgot

JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 29.6% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No issues were found in the lede.
  • The rest of the article also looks good. I did not find any grammar errors.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Optional: Add alt texts to the images in the article.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable. Good job on archiving.
  • Spotchecked Ref 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 22, 23, 31, 32–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • Composers (in the infobox) are not mentioned in the text and are not sourced.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good.

Final comments

@Famous Hobo: Everything appears to be okay. I'll promote the article when the composers get added to the text, with a reference backing up that of course. I'll put the review on hold for a week. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: We meet again! Added alt text to the images and added a reference for the composers. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Everything looks good now. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.