Talk:Team Fortress Classic

Is it possible to have more than two teams competing?

"Games in TFC involve a number of teams" — last I played, it was always just two teams. Please confirm. Vranak (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that TFC is still a two-player-only game, and changed the text accordingly. Vranak (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Murderball map has red, blue, green and yellow teams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsXRmkqBJvk So in that respect, TFC is much like the original game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.198.150 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Most official maps have two teams, except Hunted which has three, two of them are allied (sharing team chat via text and voice, and friendly fire settings). Custom maps can have up to four teams, and Half-Life multi-player maps (which have four teams) are supported, though Half-Life specific items don't have an effect when picked up.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Release date (cont.)

Adding to the archived discussion, there's a birthday mode integrated into the game (grenades and detpacks randomly have the form of a present, TF veteran quotes appear regularly). Normally it's off and can be enabled by an admin. However on certain days, birthday mode is forced. This list may not be accurate, but AFAIR the days are:

• April 7th - TFC's birthday (Should coincide with the release day, but retail might still have shipped early though.)
• August 24th - Quake TF's birthday
• December 25th
• December 26th

I suppose one could alter the local time to test it.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Heavy citation

I have found a website that could be added as citation for the heavy stats, the only thing is the site lists all the class' stats on one page, is it still acceptable to cite it? --LichWizard (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That depends on which page you are talking about. Would you be able to link it here on the talk page? Lordtobi (✉) 12:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Here you go: https://www.giantbomb.com/team-fortress-classic/3030-4561/ --LichWizard (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Giantbomb allows user editing, like a Wiki/wikia. We cannot use any content like that. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As Ferret says, Giant Bomb is a user-generated site and as such falls under WP:USERG, meaning that, unfortunately, we cannot use it because the info given might not be accurate or presented properly to be considered reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 12:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize it was user-generated, I thought it was just an informational webpage. My apologize, and thanks for your time. --LichWizard (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Team Fortress 1.5

For some time, TFC was officially renamed to TF1.5. AFAIK this happened with the introduction of Half-Life patch v1.1.0.0 (June 7th in the year 2000, written as "6.7.00" in the release notes). In the Steam release (first one was v1.1.2.0 AFAIR), the name was changed back to TFC. I couldn't find any good sources though. Here's what I got so far:

• The Team Fortress 1.5 manual is still included in the Steam version of TFC. The path relative to the local files (which you can navigate to via the Steam library) is "tfc\manual\TFCcontents.htm".
• Screenshots of the old TFC / TF1.5 main menus from the standalone version by Real. [1]
• Half-Life v1.1.1.0 release notes (the last official version before Steam release). The intermediate name "Team Fortress 1.5" is mentioned in the section for patch v1.1.0.1. [2]
• Screenshots (especially main menu) of TF1.5 as included in HL patch v1.1.0.8. [3]

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The only other thing I could find is this ancient looking website that has a TF 1.5 players guide, including a list of what's different between TF 1.5 and TFC [4] [5] --LichWizard talk 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• How about these sources (all of which are reliable)? 🤔 [6][7][8][9] Lordtobi (✉) 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems we have a decent amount of sources here :P --LichWizard talk 15:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've begun working on a section for TF1.5 over in my sandbox using the sources we've gathered. You guys can take a look and make suggestions/make changes/discuss it here if you would like ;) --LichWizard talk 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Couple more links:

• Sierra TF1.5 news
• IGN preview

Btw the "TF 1.5 players guide" above is the manual which I was talking about. It's still included in every current TFC install, even in the HLDS.

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the links ;) --LichWizard talk 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a section for Team Fortress 1.5. I think it could use a bit more work and expanding, but I thought it was good enough to put in the article at this point. --LichWizard talk 13:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not if this short of content warrants a whole section, consider merging it into Development. Lordtobi (✉) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I merged the information into development section myself before I saw this conversation. It just seemed like the most logical thing to do.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks a lot better. Also, I changed some of your wording back to the original, as the standalone version was not updated and renamed, the updated and renamed version was a standalone download. --LichWizard talk 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Another thing, do you think it'd be a good idea to have "Team Fortress 1.5" be a subsection of the Development section with its own subtitle? --LichWizard talk 15:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, Team Fortress 1.5 is the main subject of this topic, therefore all the development info should be related to it. Unless "1.5" and the "original" are somehow completely different games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They are not completely different games, but it was a rather large update in terms of what it added to the game and in terms of the history of the series imho. --LichWizard talk 16:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless you can find enough information to separate the two. the section is too small at the moment. just using my personal criteria, each one would have at least two big paragraphs to justify it. And the top half would have a subsection like "Origins" or something to that extent.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess it'll just stay the way it is for now ;P --LichWizard talk 19:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In other terms (not reviews) check out the PC Gamer magazine scans JimmyBlackwing provided below. Lordtobi (✉) 19:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Source

• [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

What exactly are these links for? Are you just dropping them here in case people ever need to reference the manual? :P --LichWizard talk 11:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting this thing to GA status

Alright, I've noticed that this article was considered for GA multiple years ago, but didn't meet the criteria. I think with a bit more work we could bring this thing to GA status :D

The main thing that needs to be taken care of is the reception section. Additionally, it could use a bit of cleaning up, especially in the game play section. I'll begin doing what I can as soon as I get some time, but I'm currently busy.

You can find why this article failed its GA review here.

Let's do this!

--LichWizard talk 16:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've scrambled some sources. I don't have the time to implement those currently, but you might able to deal with this better presently . [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Lordtobi (✉) 18:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Toby! I'll start working on what I can either tonight or tomorrow (most likely tomorrow though :P) --LichWizard talk 23:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think the Development sections needs some sources. There is a paragraph with no sources attached to it. Something small that can be taken care of.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Lordtobi and I have added some references to the first paragraph --LichWizard talk 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The Reception Section

Well, now that we've added some sources to the development section, I think our next step should be the reception section. There seems to be a limited amount of resources out there regard the game's reception, so any and all sources are great. I don't think the section has to be TOO extensive, it just has to have enough content for people to get a general idea on how people liked the game after release. --LichWizard talk 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Some pages I've found that may be useful (or not :P): [30][31] --LichWizard talk 19:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ModDB and IndieDB (by the same owner) heavily rely on user content and other stuff presented by the games' owners, no actual editing involved. You can try hunting down reviews by looking at the GameRankings table. I also provided a restrospective review by rockpapershotgun.com above. Lordtobi (✉) 19:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought reviews and the like weren't supposed to be used for this type of thing, am I wrong? --LichWizard talk 19:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the ModDB link I posted had over 100 user reviews, and compiled them into an overall rating, isn't that the type of thing we're looking for? --LichWizard talk 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The reception section is used for compiling reception to the game by the media (not users per WP:USERG). If there were certain relevant user views, like the review bombing of GTAV when Take-Two banned mods, it will have been covered by secondary media. In all other cases, do not use user reviews. Lordtobi (✉) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty, so the reception section should be structured like "Website A thinks Y of this game. Blogger B thinks Z of this game." etc.? --LichWizard talk 20:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

After looking at some other articles' reception sections it seems it's supposed to be structure in a way that explains what the general audience thought of the game and use reviews and such as sources. Please let me know if this is incorrect. --LichWizard talk 20:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to do it is to assess the overall reception (significant praise for x, lack of y) and a few (but not many!) direct quotes that accompany these statements. Lordtobi (✉) 06:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added a bit more "meat" to the reception section, but I'm still not sure if it's substantial enough yet. --LichWizard talk 14:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

GameFAQs is user-generated content and thus unreliable. CPUGamer, on the other, is not verifyably reliable, but I couldn't check it because this is what I see. LichWizard, could you check if they fulfill requirements like editorial poilicies and whatnot? Lordtobi (✉) 16:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realize they weren't allowed. Ugh, back to the drawing board I guess. Thanks for cleaning up my mess though, lol --LichWizard talk 17:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for my ignorance, but why does it matter if the review is written by the sight itself or a fan of the sight? I can see how that would be a problem if we're looking for facts, but we're looking for opinions here, so I don't quite understand why that's an issue. I'm not trying to argue that it shouldn't be against the rules or anything, I'm just trying to understand how and why things work when it comes to this sort of thing :P --LichWizard talk 00:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Credibility is what seems to be the reason. You can't trust a fan, but you can trust the direct source.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, basically this. See also WP:USERG. Magazines have editorial policies and qualified staff writers, fan sites usually (mostly) do not. Lordtobi (✉) 05:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

But we're not talking about "trusting" people here, we're talking about their opinions. Becasue the person doesn't own the website their opinion isn't allowed to be used? Unless, maybe spelling/grammar is the issue? (Sorry for getting us off topic, but I'm confuzzled :P) --LichWizard talk 11:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind, I'm wasting too much time on this. I'll just accept that's the way things are and move on, sorry for wasting your time :P I'll see if I can scramble up some better sources to use (ones that are actually allowed), but it's proving to be a difficult task. --LichWizard talk 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Our WikiProject actually has its own reliable sources search engine right here. The egnine (to 99.5%) only lists reliable sources, though sometimes forum entries slip through, just ignore those. :P Lordtobi (✉) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks man. I took a brief look and it seems like I've already seen all of the sources it brought up from my time looking for TFC sources with Google, but I'll try to do a more in-depth search later ;) --LichWizard talk 15:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, after doing a bit more searching, I was still unable to find anything that would be acceptable to use. I searched for "Team Fortress Classic Review", "Team Fortress Classic", and "Thoughts on Team Fortress Classic" to no avail. I'm wondering if it will still be able to make it to GA with the reference section as it is due to the of the lack of sources out there, or if it will basically just be impossible to get to GA. --LichWizard talk 19:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe try looking for print media. That's what I'm trying to do for another article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a good option. Although it would take a lot more time to hunt down print media and all, there may be some good printed reviews out there. JimmyBlackwing has already done this with PC Gamer US. --LichWizard talk 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is also game informer. I don't see it in the reception section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, really? Was it linked above? If so, I didn't notice it, lol :P I'll take a look. --LichWizard talk 15:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's listed. I was just pointing it out because gamerankings recognizes Game Informer has a review for it. Someone from WP:VG could have the issue and provide the text of the review.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll look into it. Also, I posted a question over at the help desk and it seems the reception session is large enough for it to still be a GA. As long as it has a little bit of information and reliable sources I was told it was fine ;) --LichWizard talk 16:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I found the PC Gamer (UK) review is located here. I believe the Game Informer review is only available in print (according to GameRankings, in the October 2002 issue, #114). Would be lovely if somebody could access that mag. Lordtobi (✉) 19:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Toby! I'll take a look at this and impliment what I can as soon as I can. --LichWizard talk 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.retromags.com/gallery/image/12835-game-informer-issue-114-october-20 heres a link I found.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems to just be a list of Game Informer issues and their covers, am I missing something here? --LichWizard talk 21:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry. for some reason I thought it had scans in that link. I guess it was a waste of time. I see the issue being sold on amazon though.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're good ;P I honestly think the reception section is fine at the moment, so there's no need to try and hunt it down (although if someone already had it that'd obviously be great :P) --LichWizard talk 21:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I added a link to GameSpot's two-page review and added PCG UK to the reception table. Here is another, three-page preview by GameSpot, though unfortunately it appears that the third page has been lost. Both others serve as good sources for development history and gameplay. Lordtobi (✉) 22:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've condensed the reception section into one paragraph per a suggestion I got on the WP:VG's talk page. I posted something over there to see if anyone else would like to help us, and I got a bunch of sggestions on how to improve the article. For one thing they said the gameplay section was lacking (I already knew this), and they also said the reception section was structured in a weird way. I've hopefully fixed the reception section, but it seems there's still qite a bit of work to do. --LichWizard talk 20:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

General Cleanup

I think what can be done at the moment for the reception section has been done, so I guess we should move on to general cleanup. There are some areas that seem to be slighty unclear, and some grammar and punctuation checking may be needed. I'll work on what I can when I get a chance. --LichWizard talk 16:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I read through the article and did a bit of grammar cleanup, but I may have missed something. I also feel like the gameplay section could be expanded a bit, but I'll look into that. --LichWizard talk 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this game, but does it only have one single game mode or does it offer more?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's only multiplayer PvP. There are different "gamemodes" (such as capture the flag, death match, etc.), but there is no singleplayer option or anything. --LichWizard talk 18:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Those modes seem important in the gameplay section. I would recommend adding details of those modes in the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was talking about. I'll look into when I get a chance. --LichWizard talk 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay Section

Alright, the gameplay section needs to be expanded. It needs to specify more on how the game plays, such as that it's a first person shooter. I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there for this sort of thing, many of which we may already be using in different parts of the article or may be collected on this talk page. --LichWizard talk 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• You can use the GameSpot preview I linked above for this. Lordtobi (✉) 06:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys! Sorry I haven't been around for the past week or so, I've been quite busy with other stuff :P Anyway, I'm ready to get back to work on this thing. It's proving a bigger task then I thought, but it'll get there ;P --LichWizard talk 19:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, yet again I've been gone for a while, but I'm back! :D It doesn't seem like anyone's continued trying to get this thing to GA status, but is anyone who was helping me still around? --LichWizard talk 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• https://web.archive.org/web/20000619044952/http://pc.ign.com/previews/10929.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20000528074426/http://gamecenter.com/Peeks/Teamfort/

Incorrectly-named weapons

So, as per the Fortress Forever mod, the following weapons on this article use the wrong names: - Pyro's "Incendiary Rocket Launcher": While it is based on the RPG from Half-life, it is also referred to in-game as the "Incendiary Cannon", not "Incendiary Rocket Launcher". - The HWGuy's "Minigun". While the Heavy weapon is called this in the Team Fortress 2 game, the official name for the minigun in TFC is "Assault Cannon". Furthermore, the Engineer is listed as having teleporters. I'm not sure if it's just in Fortress Forever, but I don't think the Engineer class can make teleporters in TFC. Additionally, the Spy class has the ability to "hack" into enemy Engineer Sentry guns, though this might only be in Fortress Forever. Either way, please make these changes or explain why otherwise. Mrman19 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)