Talk:Lionhead Studios

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

Untitled section[edit]

This article is way too negative and way too POV, 3 out of 4 alines are really negative about lionhead, it can't be on wikipedia 75% of the content of the article is how lionhead sucks. The least thing we can do about it is praising them for making really innovative original games instead of all those shooter-junk-games other companies develop. Anybody who knows something about wikipedia please make this more NPOV. Thank you !


Fable?

Added the right release date for BW2 :)

--80.197.219.94 20:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The controversy section is pretty terrible on the POV front. Sure, there may be a consensus that Monyleux overhypes games, but it's hardly the place of Wikipedia to endorse such sentiments. TheJames 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would most defintately agree. If anything, Molyneux is guilty of being overenthusiastic about his games. He makes a habit of announcing planned features as if they were already in place. I think the sentance 'speech of dubious sincerity' could do with changing. unitled 07:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you are somehow taking the right to decide what Molyneux is thinking. The best thing would be (if this is to be mentioned) if it said something along the lines of that Molyneux on several occassions/for several games has talked about features that don't make it into the final version of the game. Wikipedia doesn't need to guess as to his motives. --Lijnema 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Any idea why BC and Unity have been removed from the list of Lionhead games? These should be there shouldn't they? Gravy 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought Unity and BC back onto the page, couldn't see any reason not to Gravy 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGS buyout[edit]

Microsoft's purchase of Lionhead has already been mentioned three times in the article already. Maybe people should check what's already been said and add to that rather than repeating the same thing several times. Optichan 21:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dimitri Project[edit]

I decided to change the game Dimitri in the development section to 'The Dimitri Project' since the game hasn't been announced and that it is just speculation as to what the 'project' is called. --Gamer2325 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spore[edit]

I noticed Spore was among the list of games Lionhead's developing. I removed it, as Spore is being developed by Will Wright's Maxis Studios under the EA flag.

"Hype Controversy"[edit]

This section is unbelievably POV "Mea Culpa of dubious sincerity", "missed the point with stunning grace", ""hyping" their games to an uncommon degree" ; without some very reliable cites, it will have to go. The delays section suffers from similar problems. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm deleting that section. It needs a complete rewrite, not an edit.

Delays[edit]

Rewrote this section entirely:

Lionhead seems to get in more public trouble for their delayed games, in part due to the hype that Peter Molyneux, the lead designer, gives these titles, namely Fable. Various reports on this indicate a company tendency to re-design games mid-development and a tendency toward over-ambition, though few reports are official. The company is also always on the cutting edge of developing new technology, which adds considerably to their development schedules. Many games have been delayed for a long time which causes problems on the account that Peter Molyneux usually promises the certian time a Video Game will be realesed. Including Black and White which missed several deadlines intill it was finally realesed in 2001. The same case for The Movies which was intended for a 2004 realese date than was sleighted to 2005 due to problems concerning many things. This would lead to a series of Empty-Promises brought upon by Peter Molyneux due to the fact that he announces the games to early in its Production a mistake that Molyneux promises not to make agian.

Someone should look into who wrote this, appalling bias and spelling in many places. -- ARC Gritt 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Movies 2[edit]

Where did you get the information about The Movies 2. I would really like to know. -- niftymatt

Critical Reception[edit]

Sorry for the edit. Was reading the movies page and this page at the same time and made a mistake. Cdscottie

Fair use rationale for Image:P lionhead.jpg[edit]

Image:P lionhead.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit to "Peter Molyneux Controversy"[edit]

I have renamed the section and cleaned it up slightly as it was portrayed in a very negative light, more like a magazine than an encyclopedia. I was tempted to remove the entire section because it is uncited, however it is possible to find evidence of preview features not making the final cut, but not in the context of it being "deceptive marketing". Perhaps I am missing some sources buried somewhere though. --Taelus (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have updated it with the most recent references while still trying to make the point previous users might have tried to make. --User:SamVT81

Thanks, that looks alot better and has two sources! --Taelus (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lionhead is NOT MGS Europe[edit]

Please provide a source for such claims,Peter Molyneux is the creative director of MGS Europe but Lionhead is a seperate company Awsometilthegrave (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) No objections here`Rickisonyourcouch (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molyneaux-Bashing[edit]

This article needs to have all of the uncited "controversey" references removed. Any criticism discussed should be that which was leveled at Lionhead, not Molyneaux, who is not even at Lionhead anymore. 74.174.59.3 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closure of Lionhead Studios[edit]

There are a few articles referring to a statement made earlier today by Hanno Lemke, about the possibility of Lionhead Studios going defunct, along with a few of the games in this aritcle being cancelled indefinitely.

The full, original statement is available here: https://news.xbox.com/2016/03/07/microsoft-studios-changes-uk-denmark/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthCP (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as one could see, it's only a proposed closure, so the company hasn't shut its doors and immediately gone belly-up. So, could people stop editing so fervently, as though this has happened? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation date[edit]

So, i checked the Beta companies website [1] and it says the company was incorporated on August 1, 1996 as said in the infobox.However according to this interview [2] the company was founded in July 1997.So, which is it? Of cource this could be a ZeniMax Europe situation where the company was founded in August 2007 [3] but it was only announced in February 2008 it was incorporated [4].Timur9008 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lionhead Studios. 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) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lionhead_Studios&oldid=1208192304"