Talk:F1 2010 (video game)

Logo

File:F1 2010 Logo.jpg

A user uploaded the image on the right; is this real and correct? An anon deleted it out of the article. Darth Newdar (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the given source and the official website but couldn't find it on either, so I'd have to hazard a guess that it isn't. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So I guess that the image should be deleted? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say so; go ahead and nominate it for deletion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now nominated it for deletion. Darth Newdar (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

BBC Radio 5 Live F1 commentator David Croft just said he went to Codemasters yesterday and got to play the game, giving very positive comments. He also said that the game would be out in January 2010. Not exactly a primary source but could hint at an earlier release date than expected. Tuwile (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that: they are releasing F1 2009 on some platforms in September this year I think and the full version (presumably this one) in January 2010 (shame this game is going to be based on the 2009 season not 2010 because by its release it will be out-of-date). Officially Mr X (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tothegame.com/boxshot.asp?picnum=uk&id=9297 seems to think that it's to be released on September 24th db1987db (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IGN says the 25th, best to stick with the official press release from Codemasters - InfernoZeus (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

25th? Never head of a computer game being released on a Saturday! db1987db (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk has the release date as 24th db1987db (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've boldly applied full protection to the wrong version of the article for 3 days stemming from a request at WP:RFPP. The sources in the article seem to contradict each other about which season will be used for this game, so I strongly suggest everyone spend the next 3 days talking it out here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Darth Newdar (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: discussion copied from WT:VG. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd thought I would let you know that F1 2010 (video game) has been protected for three days from editing. The problem is that source three and source four state different seasons the game will be based on. I have been persistently reverting anonymous users changing "2009" to "2010", thinking that ref four was just a forum post. On a second look, however, it looks more official than I thought; although the bottom note which says "The views expressed in this message are in no way the official views of Codemasters and are of a personal nature" seems to dispell that. Ref three is hardly official though, is it? So, my question is, which one do we believe? Darth Newdar (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From taking a quick look, it seems that the version in the article will revolve around the 2010 season while the Wii and PSP version will be in 2009. Since the first reference doesn't mention any platforms, I'd go with the more specific official forum post. As for the disclaimer, I don't think that has anything to do with game information, just the dude's opinions being taken as those of Codemasters.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you. I shall post this on the talk page of the article, and change it once the protection period is over. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied discussion stops here. Darth Newdar (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed it to 2010 for the season that the game will be based on. Please note that in the features section it says that the game will feature tracks, drivers etc. from the 2009 season; this is correct, as that is what the ref says. Darth Newdar (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DX11

Will this game support Dx11, like Dirt2 for Pc does? I think the updated version of the Ego engine supports that. 83.108.198.236 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes directx 11 will support Colin Mcrae Dirt2,F1 2010 and all the new games codemasters is going to release soon!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitris 1395 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Release Date (2nd discussion)

I know that many, many sites have confirmed (and we have established on here) that the game will be released on September 24th. But http://www.facebook.com/#!/formula1game?ref=ts (the official F1 2010 Facebook ppage) has the release date of 22nd September (shown at the end of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3WNFj1047o posted on afforementioned Facebook page), which is a Wednesday. Which do we go with? Ciao! Dan db1987db (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

22nd is North American date, 24th is European. - X201 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception part too positive?

After reading the hundreds of pages of bugs report and users angry comments over codemasters official F1 2010 forum I am a bit surprised by that overly positive "reception" part of this article, which certainly doesn't represent nor mentions the users fury I have encountered concerning the many alleged flaws and bugs of this game. (see http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/429298-unofficial-f1-2010-bugs-errors-list.html ) Sensi.fr (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a big editor of this article, but I'd guess it's possibly down to the quality of the sources. Any kind of forum does not meet WP:RS. It would have to be picked up by an independent source; for a gane, probably something like IGN would suffice. If it's been mentioned in detail by a reliable source, then my apologies for a pointless response. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Angry users are not a noteworthy occurrence. Like the man says, if you can provide a reliable source, that's ok. Otherwise, no. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cant believe the arrogant attitude towards the bias in this section. This game has been panned by many many users. "angry users are not a noteworthy occurrence". I cant begin to tell you how arrogant that sounds. First off, there is no mention of the completely misleading games reviews, that mention none of the bugs that plague this game, and now you're saying that the customers views on the end product are'nt a matter for concern? Oh you want some notable proof of users anger. Try the OFFICIAL forums at codemasters. Enough angry posts there to last a lifetime of reading. But no, of course, rather than reference real concerns from real customers, wikipedia would seemingly prefer to reference the totally misleading games reviews instead, games reviews that are bordering on being criminally innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.81.75 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever known a game that didn't have irate users on the forums? But anyway.. you should read up at WP:RS and WP:SPS. A forum post can never be a reliable source because it is an example of self-published media. There is nothing backing up these posts. I could go on the official forum right now, create an account, and post that the game is completely bug-free. Does that make it so? --SubSeven (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

81.100.81.75, I believe you are making quite a simple error. Yes - there has been a lot of yelling over on the forums - but this is irrelevant if it hasn't been picked up by a reviewer. The aim of Wiki is not to review games ourselves and go doing original research into the opinions of gamers. For instance, I can't write in the critical reception section of the new Take That album that I consider it to be atrocious and so do many of my friends. That's not the point. That's what I would write if I were reviewing the album myself - but the wiki article about it must only cite other reviews and report the general tone of both popular reviews of the album and objective sales figures and the like. In the same vein - I may personally feel that F1 2010 has a lot of issues - for instance it is phenomenally easy and more or less any race can be won in the slowest car starting from the back of the grid - you can get up into 1st from last in about 5 laps on the highest difficulty driving the slowest car - that is my biggest problem with it - but I don't write that on wikipedia as that's just my opinion of the game. If a few notable reviews had also picked up on this point then it could be mentioned. Forums are just places where people can discuss opinions and anyone can say anything they want. They don't make noteworthy game reviews. To put comments in a wiki article based purely on some annoyed comments about bugs you've seen on forums is no different to editing the article about Lady Gaga, putting in the critical reception section that she's ugly and her music is terrible based on the fact that you've seen comments to that effect on youtube. Forums are not a source. Anyway - most reviews have picked up the bugs and they are mentioned in this article - going on a massive rant about them wouldn't be within the wiki guidelines even if it were justified. Duster (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SubSeven|SubSeven - "A forum post can never be a reliable source because it is an example of self-published media. There is nothing backing up these posts. I could go on the official forum right now, create an account, and post that the game is completely bug-free. Does that make it so?"

Are games publications and websites not self-published media as well then? At the end of the day, a games review or preview is somebody's opinion. You say there is nothing to back up these angry posts on forums, but there is also nothing to back up the assertion that "this game was recieved positively". It was recieved positively by people who failed to aknowledge any fault in the game. Prior to release (and even after release) I did not read one bad review of this game. If you want to gloss over the fact that this game was NOT recieved well, then thats fine, you can use a technicality and say that the reviews were positive and that means the game was recieved well then thats fine and thats exactly what has happened, but its dishonest. If a review is technically not accurate and does not actually review all parts of the game, good and bad, then can that review really be cited as a meaningful source? A review by someone working for a publication is every bit the self-published media that you say forum posts are. You guys should be politicians the way you can twist this to make it seem like a review of a game is king and whatever anyone else thinks about it is not relevant, especially when those reviews are'nt even accurate in their reporting of the game. Bottom line, reviews of this game are misleading, and so you are citing misleading information as fact in your article. Twist that anyway you like, but the bottom line is that this game was NOT recieved as positively by people as this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.81.75 (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S I think its interesting that you write off my concerns as a rant and that tells me everything I need to know about the way this article is maintained. I dont think challenging the honesty of an article or its sources is a rant and your assertion that it is tells me that honesty does'nt rank very highly in your scheme of things. The day that the search for honesty gets downgraded as a rant is a sad day for honest communication.  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.81.75 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All articles in Wikipedia are governed by WP:VERIFY. Its not about what you or I say is the truth, its about whether a reliable source documented it and that source's record is available for any user of Wikipedia to check. As it stands in this article numerous reliable games magazines and websites (and we vet them, we don't allow just any old website or magazine to be used - see WP:VG/RS) have rated F1 201 high enough for it to have a Metacritic/GameRankings score in the 80s. Their reviews are their opinions of the game, this article is recording the fact that they rated the game fairly highly. We're not here to act as a peer review system and pass judgement on their reviewing techniques. We just record that Magazine X said Y and gave score Z. Your complait seems to boil down to "the magazines reviews were incorrect and they failed to spot a number og bugs and mark the game down accordingly" - if that's the case then you need to take that argument to the actual magazine and presure them into re-reviewing the game. - X201 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on F1 2010 (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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/675gxWVpa?url=http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2009-game-1014/340638-unofficial-cm-developer-faq-read-before-posting.html to http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=340638
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110070723/http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/431849-corrupted-saved-game-potential-workaround.html to http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/431849-corrupted-saved-game-potential-workaround.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025020841/http://community.codemasters.com/forum/6638431-post4.html to http://community.codemasters.com/forum/6638431-post4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113023808/http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/444669-codemasters-response-fuel-sim.html to http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/444669-codemasters-response-fuel-sim.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/formula-1-2010-review
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130123214347/http://www.gamingxp.com/bericht-4080-koch_media-codemasters-ps3-page5-f1_2010.htm to http://www.gamingxp.com/bericht-4080-koch_media-codemasters-ps3-page5-f1_2010.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019034547/http://www.techtree.com/India/Reviews/F1_2010/551-113167-540.html to http://www.techtree.com/India/Reviews/F1_2010/551-113167-540.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718131810/http://www.simhq.com/_motorsports5/motorsports_155d.html to http://www.simhq.com/_motorsports5/motorsports_155d.html

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) 20:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)