Talk:Grim Fandango

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGrim Fandango is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 12, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

New primary source[edit]

Just came across this, a rather extensive design document by Tim Schafar on Grim Fandango's puzzles. It might be useful for the article, it might not, but its interesting reading either way. -- Sabre (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one or two pieces of data from it that could be added, but for the time being I've ex.linked it. --MASEM 00:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead. Here is the backup copy--SkyWalker (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEST GAME EVER YE![edit]

I love wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.69.33 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to see this is a featured article. But can it stay that way? --78.144.242.111 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a spoiler. Don't read the "Plot" part if you want to enjoy the game! 85.182.140.162 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a commercial failure if it sold between 100,000 and 500,000 units?[edit]

It says its a commercial failure in two parts of the article, but the sales listed seem rather impressive. Game sells for $40, So that's 4 million to 20 million dollars. How much did it cost to make games back in those days? Dream Focus 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources within the industry consider that selling 95,000 from 1998 to 2003, and "between 100,000 and 500,000" over ten years is a commercial failure, and those sources is what we go with. But still, compare with say, contemporary title Half-Life, which between 1998 and 2004 sold around 8 million units. -- Sabre (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Tim Schafer has said (somewhere) that Grim Fandango made money, but people just seemed believe for no reason that it tanked. 75.134.96.76 (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for most large companies it is mostly a matter of "what kind of product can we make to make the most profit" rather than "what kind of top notch product can we make and still make a profit". The game industry is no exception to this. So they think "why make an adventure and never make it above a million copies no matter if we have one of the best designers in the genre on board? Let's make an FPS!". Of course, games like Half-Life are not made every day. But neither are games such as this one. So basically I think that if you can work with someone of Tim Schafer's calibre you do so. It is very unlikely that you'll have a flop in your hands and very likely people will remember the game 10 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.108.16 (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales and Aftermath[edit]

"Subsequently, the studio dismissed many of the people involved with their adventure games,[67][68] some of whom have since gone to create Telltale Games, creating an episodic series of Sam & Max games.[69] In 2006 LucasArts stated they do not plan on returning to adventure games until the "next decade".[70]"

These two sentences seem a little out of date, given Telltale have now released many more series and LucasArts have released the Monkey Island remake. -AlexTG (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong, or was it released as freeware some time ago? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never. If it was, it was illegally done. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another FA with no inline citations in lede[edit]

  • "style aspects of film noir, including The Maltese Falcon, On the Waterfront and Casablanca," - sources please
  • "The game received positive reviews, praising its artistic design and overall game direction in particular." sources please
  • "However, the game has been considered a commercial failure, which partially led LucasArts to terminate their adventure game development, contributing to the decline of the adventure game genre." definitely sources please

193.122.22.247 (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, lead sections do not require citations if the assertion is repeated (and cited) further down in the main text. 195.225.189.243 (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casablanca and On the Waterfront are film noir? News to me. The Photoplayer 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casablanca certainly is. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The photography may be noir style, but by any stretch of the definition, is hardly a film noir. The Photoplayer 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Thephotoplayer and would like a citation before something like this is asserted. Being a film student myself I feel I have enough knowledge of genre theory and the conventions of film noir to say that Casablanca and On the Waterfront do not qualify as film noir. They at least do not typify the film noir genre, and exist at best on the very fringe. I don't see the point of using the two as examples when they so poorly represent the genre, and there are so many far more significant works, such as Double Indemnity or The Big Sleep. --158.36.201.251 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are specifically cited as influences for the game, while the others you suggest are not. We can't second guess what sources meant to say. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are cited as influences, then where is the citation? The statement does not have a citation. Also, if someone has indeed said that the game is inspired by Casablanca, On the Waterfront and Film Noir, I still think it would be better to do a quote, because a paraphrased sentence nesting Casablanca and On the Waterfront as legitimate Film Noir genre movies, is simply misinformation. You could only state this by adding a quote where the movies and genre are grouped together as influences. --Pinkopf (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites[edit]

The last line mentions a couple random fan sites. Any evidence these are notable sites and require mentioning? The citations are to the sites themselves and not to a news article mentioning them. If there is no news article, they shouldn't be here.--Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 59 from the Escapist, written as a retrospective of the game, mentions the sites, and sourced in the prior sentence. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well then the reference could be moved to the end of that, and the references to those sites removed. They're not actually references, they're links, and wikipedia is not a link repository and links masquerading as references don't fit here.--Crossmr (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section[edit]

This section carries on a lot about what lucasarts did but has very little mention of Grim Fandango, things quoted don't mention the game, and focuses heavily on other franchises and not this. It then goes on to state that "However, no statement regarding a republishing, remake, or new game based on Grim Fandango has been made." which falls under WP:CRYSTAL and other issues like "We don't make a list of everything that hasn't happened, that could be unending". It creates WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues.--Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs throughout this section (17 and 18 notably) pin the downfall of the adventure games in part to the commercial failure of GF; understanding it was a chain reaction from that point onwards within LucasArts is what leads up to that point. Do agree that the "No statment..." line is unneeded. --MASEM (t) 11:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the part about what happened in 2009 (the revivial of games, doesn't match the flow)--MASEM (t) 11:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary source[edit]

The Escapist ran an article earlier this month that discussed aspects of Grim Fandango's themes and other stuff that reviewers often overlook. The article is here, it might be useful, it might not. -- Sabre (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

I think there should be a section about the excellent soundtrack by Peter McConnell.

Some info: http://soundtracks.mixnmojo.com/grim.htm http://www.discogs.com/Peter-McConnell-Grim-Fandango-Original-Game-Soundtrack/release/1517090 http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/63aa716d-a453-3e87-84e3-efd8bfd2754a http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/7fe6d55c-22fc-31c4-a460-0f299766b3b4 http://kotaku.com/5827410/the-video-game-that-got-jazz-so-so-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhaymate (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have started drafting a soundtrack section. Soon I'll add it to the article. A listing of the soundtrack I am developing would look like this (length of each track still to be added):

Grim Fandango original game soundtrack (1998)
No.TitleLength
1."Casino Calavera" 
2."Swanky Maximino" 
3."Smooth Hector" 
4."Mr. Frustration Man" 
5."Hector Steps Out" 
6."Hi-Tone Fandango" 
7."She Sailed Away" 
8."High Roller" 
9."Domino's in Charge" 
10."Trouble with Carla" 
11."Blue Casket Bop" 
12."Manny's Office" 
13."Rubacava" 
14."Blue Hector" 
15."This Elevator is Slow" 
16."Domino" 
17."Don Copal" 
18."Neon Ledge" 
19."Nuevo Marrow" 
20."Gambling Glottis" 
21."Raoul Appears" 
22."Scrimshaw" 
23."Talking Limbo" 
24."Coaxing Meche" 
25."Lost Souls' Alliance" 
26."Los Angelitos" 
27."The Enlightened Florist" 
28."Temple Gate" 
29."Ninth Heaven" 
30."Compañeros" 
31."Manny & Meche" 
32."Bone Wagon" 

The syntax/markup for a track listing allows to choose whether to by default collapse or expanand the list. I am showing it here by having "| collapsed = yes". Any opinions whether it should be collapsed or shown?

(talk) user:Al83tito 14:57, 29 March 2013

Now I just added a soundtrack section, including an album infobox. I have used many of the sources suggested by Mayhaymate above (thank you!). Check it out in the article! (talk) user:Al83tito 4:30, 1 May 2013 UTC
Adding the soundtrack section is fine, but note that because the soundtrack cover doesn't convey anything new for the game and isn't critically commented on itself, including it is against non-free media policy. The rest is fine and appreciated! --MASEM (t) 05:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. And ok about removing the cover. Instead, it could carry more explanatory value to include some music samples. Any thoughts on that? (talk) user:Al83tito 5:34, 1 May 2013 UTC

Script error[edit]

One of the sections has a script error. I cannot fix it however, is there anyone who can fix it? --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tapping the guy that coded this new template to point him here to see if it can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor removed the compilation = Yes which fixed it, but was it the right way? --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the cause of the problem is now known and will be corrected automatically in the new future. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A remastered version[edit]

Look: http://thenextweb.com/media/2014/06/10/remastered-version-grim-fandango-coming-exclusively-ps4-ps-vita/ I've seen there's a small paragraph about it at the bottom of the intro paragraph, but I think we could put it in the DEVELOPMENT section, too. Like - enter more details about the remastered version. What do you think? Boky (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the section w/in development for the remake, with some details from a 15min video that 2Player Productions just put out. I definitely expect to expand on this as more details are made known, but let's try to keep this all within this article (eg no need for a separate article for the remake). --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Boky and Masem for your contributions. I believe the DEVELOPMENT section should be of information on the original development of the game. We can add info on the development of the remastered version, but in a separate section of the article, as it is now. (talk) user:Al83tito 15:35, 03 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tim Schafer has hinted in several recent interviews and panels that they the re-released remastered game may include more "additional contents" on the original development of the game, for the fans to have. If/when that info comes out, I think that could be good info to add to the original development section. Here are two interesting talks about the Grim Fandango, past and future versions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO4MMd9wwGo (One-on-one interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXEymb3c8Hc (Panel including Tim Schafer, Peter McConnell, Peter Chan)
(talk) user:Al83tito 15:35, 03 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

Using the Checklinks tool, I've updated this article's dead links. A few notes:

  • Grim Fandango Puzzle Document (fixed) 404 error. Updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 31 (fixed) 301 error. Updated with Wayback, changed URL to relevant page of the interview.
  • Ref 34 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Updated with current URL on Gamespot.com.
  • Ref 44 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 45 (fixed) 404 error. Page no longer available on Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 46 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 47 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 48 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 50 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 51 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 53 (fixed) redirect loop. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 54 (fixed) 404 error. Updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 55 (fixed) 404 error. Updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 65 (fixed) 301 error. Updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 71 (fixed) 404 error. Page cannot be crawled by Wayback due to Robots.txt. Page no longer hosted on Gamespot.com. Updated with archive.today.
  • Ref 77 (fixed) 500 error. Updated with Wayback.

This review was not comprehensive. The broken links should be up to date, but there may be other problems that I missed. --chrisFjordson (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even better referencing[edit]

I think it is worth "diversifying" and broadening the references in the article. Currently most references are to websites, which is perfectly legitimate. However, I suggest that in addition to those, we include more references to print-based specialized media (like the classic Computer Gaming World magazine), and mainstream media like newspapers. I am beginning to do that. I have also been adding already web archiving information to the citations of web sources. (talk) user:Al83tito 15:45, 04 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished adding web archiving info to most references.(talk) user:Al83tito 01:30, 05 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More subsections to organize the existing (good) content, and expand it[edit]

The contributions to this article are great (well written and well sourced!), and I would like to suggest some enhancements and expansions to it. I think the Development the section is long, and it could be subdivided into some logical subsections, that could better guide the reader. These include:

  • Background or Origins
  • 3D design
  • Inspiration and themes for the game (aztec, noir films, art deco, Mexican Day of the Dead folklore...)
  • Voice cast (maybe)
  • Release

I am suggesting taking the existing text, respecting the original contributors' text, and just introducing some subsection titles. The above are just some ideas on how to subdivide, but the exact subtitles could be worded differently. This all pertains to the development of the original game. In a separate discussion it should be discussed how to incorporate information on the development of the remastered re-release.

I also suggest one new subsection to development, or maybe a stand-alone section in the article:

  • Key team members and their inspiration and influences: Tim Schafer, Peter McConnell, Peter Chan (at least). The latter was key in the graphic design, and the article coverage on his contributions could be expanded. I don't know which others should be included. A complete list of credits can be found in the game's manual, which can be downloaded from here: http://www.brainygamer.com/VGC/GrimManual.pdf

Also, in the existing Awards subsection, I also suggest including a wikitable to better list all awards and nominations received by the game. An example of what I am talking about is in the Broken Sword series wiki article

Please share your thoughts on this proposals. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including a music clip sample (Non-Free Media)[edit]

Hi all. I am thinking of including a short music clip to illustrate the soundtrack. My understanding is that there are some strict rules to follow, according to the Non-Free Media policies, and specifically audio clips policies. These include, among others: Only 1 clip per record; the clip must be the lesser of 10% of the length of the song or 30 seconds; and the quality should be downgraded from the original (for example 64kbit/s -- in Ogg format/ quality). Any opinions or further guidance? (talk) user:Al83tito 05:39, 15 October 2014 UTC

You have the rules right, but we need to have critical commentary about the soundtrack or selected sample. I think we can, but I'd follow with a track that captures something a secondary source has said, eg like IGN's review: "a blend of simple jazz and classical Mexican themes". Which track works for that, I'm not sure immediately, but that's how to best support inclusion. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Masem, those are good comments. You guidance is appreciated. (talk) user:Al83tito 04:24, 18 October 2014 UTC
Following all the policies and advice as outlined here above, I have now included a short 13 second sound clip of Casino Calavera, remaining at about 10% of the total length of the credits track of a full length of 2:15. The quality has been downgraded to 64kbit/s. I have included it the soundtrack section, where there is critical commentary of the music. (talk) user:Al83tito 13:20, 38 January 2015 UTC

Computer magazine covers inclusion[edit]

File:Two computer game magazines featuring Grim Fandango on their cover.JPG
Two computer game magazines from Spain (PC Juegos y Jugadores, and, Micromanía) featuring the Grim Fandango game on their cover.

Some computer game magazines features Grim Fandango in their covers. I would like to propose the inclusion of this image, within the Reception section of the article. Any opinions on whether it would be good to include it?(talk) user:Al83tito 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to be a free image (despite being on Commons, the covers include copyrightable elements and are not de minimus), so no, it's not going to be appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, as usual, you are right. Thank you for your prompt response. I thought that creating a derivative work would be enough to allow it into wikimedia, but upon examining the de minimis guielines, it seems it is not possible. I agree that deletion may be necessary, although sad. So I will not contest it. I will need to review three other pictures I uploaded under similar assumptions, after studying more if there is a threshhold for originality. (talk) user:Al83tito 9:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Masem, Do you think that the picture could be used in this article under Fair Use, uploading it into wikipedia specifically for its use in this article?(talk) user:Al83tito 9:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really - there's nothing special about the images to require an image. Game magazines all the time use game art on covers to draw the readers' eyes, so unless there is something specifically unique on these covers that has been discussed by others (for example, we have a Game Informer cover over at Development of BioShock Infinite because the use of the homage artwork was discussed in sources). This could happen with the game's release in the next month or so, but just to show it was a cover story for some magazines, not really. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unifying date formats[edit]

The date formats used in the article references (publication, archive and access dates) should be unified to use a single, consistent format as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. I personally prefer "Jan[uary] 26, 2015" over "2015-01-26", but the latter seems to be more common currently. Thoughts? —Jopo (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would see no problem using MDY dates here even if I during getting this to FA years ago normalized them to iso format. If no one objects w/in a day, I see no problem making the switch, particularly before reception related to the remastered release comes out. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use image to compare before and after remastering[edit]

Hi all. I think the article would benefit from the inclusion of an image that shows two frames that illustrate the difference between the graphics of the original game, and the remastered version. One example of this, is this image: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/zw3kb2qcvy7vbwdg8rlh.jpg . Any thoughts on the inclusion of this particular one, or some other one? The one I propose is in high resolution. I suppose that the quality should be reduced, although if it is reduced too much, then it defeats the purpose of showing the higher-def rendered textures from the remastered version, in contrast to the low-res of the original. Any thoughts on that as well? Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 13:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I also suggest the addition of the new digital cover of the game, as means of identification of the new release: https://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/15590956029 (talk) user:Al83tito 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison images would pass NFC since the changes in graphics and commentary on those changes are available to support it. The new cover -- not so much. The art style is still clearly within the original game. While NFC is not some quota-based thing I would like to hold off additional non-free until I can review the concept art that we can access with the remastered version to see if there's anything else there. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for your assessment. I'll hold off for now, and revisit the topic in a little while. After a few days of more reviews and media coverage we may gain a better overview of where the article as a whole is at. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Would argue that the current image has been downscaled too much to show the main differences in the remaster. Yes, you have the lighting, but you're missing the uprezzed textures and the fact that they finally have proper antialiasing. Do remember that there is no hard and fast rule on the resolution of an image--it's just that, usually, a low resolution image is good enough. The actual guideline is to avoid using unnecessarily high resolution.

If necessary, we could compose an image that has both a full screen thumbnail (for lighting) and a smaller cropped out portion of the image for closer details. — trlkly 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latter solution would be a problem, since it would combine multiple images that we put together which would be multiple images under NFCC rules. Instead, I just increased the resolution (though still not full) that one can clearly see the difference in the pixalation on top vs bottom. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on remastered version[edit]

Thank you to all (and especially Masem), for the contributions in keeping the article updated with the new coverage regarding the remastered version. I think a while ago there was a brief dialogue on whether the info of the new release would merit a stand-alone wiki article, or just expand the existing one. For now, we have gone forward expanding the existing one. Several sections now include a subsection talking about the remastered game. This is true for Soundtracks and Reception. There is also a section "Remastered version" that stands as its own section, not being nested under any other section. That feels a bit odd: I wonder if it would either be nested under the Development section, or alternatively maybe should be relabeled to "Development of remastered version". (talk) user:Al83tito 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can probably go under Development if it doesn't grow too much more (eg a para or so). I hadn't finished adding things from the Polygon article yet but I don't think we'll necessarily see much more at that detail on the dev. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, and your work, Masem. It is looking great. The "archeology" article is a great one; an excellent source about the development of the game. Thank you for working on getting the info well presented into wikipedia. I understand and share your concern on the length of that part. If it gets longer than expected, we can consider more approaches. One possibility is to add sub-sub-section to it, for example, first there could be "Announcement", then "Challenges", and then "Later development and release". Just an idea. Cheers. (talk) user:Al83tito 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding: Reception>Remastered version[edit]

I think we can expect much more coverage in the next few weeks and months on the release of GF Remastered. So we can expect this subsection to grow. I propose creating a new dedicated "Video Game Reviews" template, to fill with the new scores given by the media. That would mean moving the 4 scores already entered in the existing scores box, into the new one I propose. I am happy to take care of that myself.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to, given the current trend that the remaster is getting nixed on its lack of features and being a relic of a different game design philosophy. Also many of the sources in the current box aren't functional/active as review sources today. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then I'll work on that creating that new box, and move the new scores there. I'll get that done within the day.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the new box for the subsection, and also updated it with more score info.(talk) user:Al83tito 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I suggest is putting the date in the title of the table instead of the subtitle, as it looks a bit heavy that way. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you; your edits are good and the layout is better that way. At first the layout was a bit off, and I didn't know how to improve it. I did some edits on top of yours, and only after I noticed that you were editing; that is why I reverted my last minor edit. Anyways, the result now looks better to me. Thanks. (talk) user:Al83tito 21:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More info on original development[edit]

There are two interviews with the lead programmer that I believe are not being used so far as sources for the wiki article. I am listing them here (talk) user:Al83tito 12:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC):[reply]

This is a fan-made website though, probably doesn't quite live up to the standards of reliable sources. Perhaps it's fine for non-controversial statements. -- intgr [talk] 12:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Arcnova1?[edit]

This user has been making erratic changes and deletions in the past few days. Some are clearly vandalism. Thanks to some vigilant users and bots, all the changes were reverted. I am not very familiar with the procedures and criteria to block a user. Is it warranted to request blocking this user? (talk) user:Al83tito 4:15, 5 Feb 2015 (UTC)

Tank-style controls?[edit]

What does that mean? There's no explanation, and from the constant mention of the fact on articles about the game, it seems important. 122.59.144.15 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Grim Fandango. 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) 13:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grim Fandango. 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) 06:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grim Fandango. 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) 21:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grim Fandango. 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) 15:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Proposal of adding a Further reading section[edit]

I wanted to run by the interested editors of this article, the idea of having a Further reading section, to highlight those works that delve in significant detail into different aspects of Grim Fandango. So far I can think of these ones:

The latter one is listed already (great!), so I also want to pose the question to nfellow editors if it would be good to also include it in this section I am proposing.

As I'd be interested to see what others' opinions on including this section, and if yes, what works should be listed within it.

Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 21:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to revisit this. While I could bold and go ahead and place this list in the article, I want to give it another chance for other editors to first weigh in. I know that @Masem: is actively involved with this article, and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies in general, so I'd appreciate yours (and anyone else's input). Thanks. Al83tito (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Fandango fan sites[edit]

Idea[edit]

Per current polices, I am not proposing at this time that we include in the wikipedia article on Grim Fandango any fan sites as external links or references. On the other hand, as time goes on, there is the possibility that in the future some fan sites -especially about creations as remarkable as Grim Fandango- may come to be seen as interesting artifacts of their time, and that those could help shed light into, or illustrate, the cultural significance and impact on the zeitgeist, of Grim Fandango. This is why I would like to share further below the list of fan sites that I have attempted to compile before they might have fallen into oblivion. If others know of other old fan sites, I'd invite them to add them to the list.

Overview of polices limiting the use of fan websites now and future possibilities[edit]

As of 2021, The wikipedia policies on external links (Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites) say:

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: (...) 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Along similar lines, Wikipedia:Reliable sources also steers editors away from using fan sites as sources for articles. Also we have a policy about No original research. And in the policies about What Wikipedia is not, it talks about it not being a directory. In addition to the policies, there are also some essays that speak to the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia and that Wikipedia is not a fan website. Others may point to additional policies and practices along these lines.

Instead, the talk page is where ideas and sources (especially ones that may need consensus building first) can be shared and their value deliberated.

Future possibilities[edit]

  • The educational value of articles is enhanced with the inclusion of illustrative media, especially images. There is the possibility of broadening the concept of what illustrative materials can be, to include archived old websites that may carry their own unique illustrative value.
  • Some careful narrow usage of primary sources is allowed, and as some sources age, their value may change.
    • For example, a pamphlet of a recent political campaign may seem of little value to Wikipedia today, but a 100 year-old pamphlet becomes of potential greater interest as a source and/or illustration about what the campaign was about.
  • The community could broaden the usage of Template:External media or similar template.

List[edit]

Live fan sites (as of 2021)[edit]

Defunct fan sites[edit]

Other miscellaneous fan online resources[edit]

Closing considerations[edit]

Often, between something being in vogue, and something becoming of historical interest, it goes through a "valley of death" where it falls out of fashion and is mostly forgotten and unvalued; it is too old to be of interest, and still too new to be thought as historical. This can happen to physical objects, as well as information. Some items may be later on rescued and preserved, while others may be irreversibly lost.

Some may point that these websites are not irreversibly lost because they are already in the Internet Archive. Part of my motivation here is to list them so that editors can know these pages existed, and so they can go look for them in the IA. If we don't list them, it would be much more difficult for someone to know to look for them, and that would be tantamount to them being lost for all practical purposes.

So again, this list is not meant as a resource for use in the article now. But, in anticipation of the possibility of those becoming more interesting as they age, I wanted to shared the resource here for easier access and consideration of future generations of editors. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments[edit]

(if anyone would like to share their take on this)

Phrasing errors and lack of sources[edit]

Grim Fandango received praise for its art design and direction. It was selected for several awards and is often listed as one of the greatest video games of all time. However, it was a commercial failure and contributed towards LucasArts' decision to end adventure game development and the decline of the adventure game genre until the 2012 video game, Telltale's The Walking Dead, became critically success has been seen as constituting a revitalization of the genre.

There aren’t sources for any of these claims and the last part is very incoherent. Bananasection (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last phrase can be fixed but per WP:LEDECITE citations are not required in lede as long as they are sourced in body which these are. --Masem (t) 16:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

207.229.139.154 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/the-duelist-36/page/n89/mode/2up
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grim_Fandango&oldid=1218278535"