Open main menu

DMY formatEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since the subject's developer is an American company, the article will use American English and will use the American month/date/year date notation. ‑–—Mr. Guye (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can anybody explain why this article wants to use DMY date format, but the American version of the sport name (soccer)? Who or what decides the date format anyway, is it first come, first serve or what? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No, no, you make a good point. Consistency in regional formats is desirable, let's use MDY. The hidden comments should stay though, for the benefit of the drive-by IP editors.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, was just making sure, since consistency is a form of quality in regards to a Wikipedia article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please, have a read to Shankao (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I get that, but that doesn't explain why the article used the American word (soccer), but the non-American date format, despite the company being based here. You wouldn't expect to see MDF on the article on aussie rules, would you? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I originally used DMY when starting the article because of personal preference and because I think the U.S.'s MDY is an abomination, but I agree that because this is an American dev, MDY should be used, along with U.S. ENGVAR such as "soccer" instead of "football".  · Salvidrim! ·  06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Music section?Edit

Wasn't there a section for the soundtrack? What happened to it? Osh33m (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed due to it's non-notability, which dates back to a consensus a few months back. I would have personally kept it, but I don't run the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you link me to the consensus? I for one feel that it is much worse off without the soundtrack listed. Osh33m (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
WT:VG/A106#Soundtrack listings.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Why waste a free cover art, considering the strict policy which most of game studios take and that do not usually release content under a free license? Hakken (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So how do we vote to get the soundtrack back? Especially now since the update added to it? Osh33m (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't? Soundtrack listings are not within the scope of articles like this one. If you disagree with the consensus linked above, feel free to start a new discussion on WT:VG to see if a new discussion would reach the same conclusion or not.  · Salvidrim! ·  04:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dissident93: @Osh33m: @Salvidrim!: @Hakken: I'd like to revisit this discussion, per the announcement made by Monstercat 2 weeks ago about a partnership, as well as a future update that would include what is called "Rocket League Radio," and would like feedback on whether this announcement is notable to include in this article. The announcement is already included in the mentioned article as notable to the label. Jd02022092 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jd02022092: my opinion hasn't changed from 2 years ago. I never agreed that the soundtrack was non-notable from the start so count me in for returning it to the article along with the "Rocket League Radio" you speak of. Osh33m (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
As prose? Sure. But with a track listing? Still gotta say no. If Chrono Trigger and the GTA games don't have them in their base articles, it doesn't belong here either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure whoever removed the section deserves credit for using WP:GAMECRUFT #15 as a reason for removal, though. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is sarcasm? If Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII, which are often called some of the best soundtracks in any game, can't have a tracklisting in their articles due to the policies, how would Rocket League be the exception? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


The platform section links to the computing platform article here: which defines computing platform as: "a pre-existing piece of computer software or code object is designed to run within, obeying its constraints, and making use of its facilities."

Please help me understand how it makes use of linux's facilities, is designed to run in linux, or obey's it's constraints.

Also, please check here for how emulation does not satisfy platform req: I agree this is only tangentially related because it's not talking about purely games that have been announced but not released; however it does show that even if a game is somehow PLAYABLE it doesn't belong unless it's officially supported. Surely emulation on a game in linux is closer to making use of linux's facilities than an announcement. Arwineap (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just like many other games, this game can and will be ported to Linux. Since this game is made in Unreal Engine 3, it can be exported natively to run on Linux distributions. It is in no case necessary to know how it works if you are not into IT, but if it is officially going to be on Linux and OS X, it has to be added to the platforms tag. Lordtobi () 13:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The fact that it's an unreal engine does give hope to the announcement of linux; however the game has not been compiled for linux, or even released for opengl on non-console platforms. Furthermore it was on unreal engine before the announcement for linux, so if unreal engine fills the requirement for "making use of facilities" then the annoucement should have never been a pre-req and we should go edit every unreal engine game claiming linux as a supported platform. I think that the argument for adding linux to platforms would be stronger if the publisher announced a real release date, or hadn't pushed it back a couple times already Arwineap (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to get the point. The game was made in Unreal Engine, meaning that developer Psyonix could compile it for Linux and OS X whenever they want. They have stated repeatedly that Linux and OS X builds are "in the works" meaning that they are implementing compatability and doing extensive testing, which is only delayed by the content updates for Windows and PlayStation 4. So it has been announced that the game will be on OS X and Linux, and with that, it belongs into the platforms section. It is regardles of how or for what the game was released, it is the matter of what is official and what is not. Lordtobi () 14:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Capable of being compiled for does not fill the require of platforms as defined by the article cited, - Here's the list of unreal engine games - If the requirement is that the underlying ENGINE supports the platform, we need to edit a number of games' platforms. I agree that the publisher has announced future linux support, but an announcement alone is not enough to fill the definition, and furthermore it was originally specified for the end of 2015. Arwineap (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In how far does it not "fill the definition"? The platform tag serves for officially released and officially announced platforms (if not officially canceled). There is nothing more to it. Lordtobi () 14:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please go re-read what the section `platform` links to; no where on that wiki does it talk about 'announcing' a platform, because that's simply not what the word is defined as. I'll link it for you again,
So you do not seem to understand it general, the platform tag in the {{Infobox video game}} template directs to an Article about computing platforms. No article is a guideline of what to fill into a template, guidelines to those are found on the template itself. If you are new to Wikipedia, you have to get going with how it works before accusing anyone else of doing something wrong, so please read Wikipedia's five pillars and the {{Infobox video game}} template instead of performing edit warring. Lordtobi () 14:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the infobox, I agree that this has a better definition for what platform should be. "The unabbreviated console or operating system for which the game was specifically developed. This includes dedicated ports, but not games in emulation or services" - This game, rocket league, has no port for linux which was specifically developed. Thus far it has only been specifically developed for windows. It may use an engine that supports linux; but it clearly does not have a specific port. Arwineap (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Even if it has not been released yet, the Linux, OS X and Xbox One ports are being developed for specifically. Time takes no prisoners for that matter, wheter it was in the past, right now, or in the future. If it is official and is being developed for, it fits to just that. Lordtobi () 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The port has not been developed, it has been announced. The release date section listing the port as TBD is satisfactory to inform readers of the publisher's hard work on the game. Arwineap (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It is being developed, thus they apply. There is no reason not to include it apart from your peronal opinion, which does not count. Lordtobi () 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've signed us up for some counseling; maybe a third party can help us Arwineap (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, but if you aren't yet able to properly wikilink something, you are definetly too new to Wikipedia to decide over more experienced users. Signing up for third-party opinions is not necessary at all since there is only one way to have it: "with announced-only" and "without announced-only". In this case, you represent the second party. And I have given multiple reasons why I am correct and it is basically the same all over Wikipedia. I saw you tried the same on Goat Simulator in mid-2014, which resulted in a revert as well. So, please, stop trying to through your own opinion about something fixed. Lordtobi () 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Was your last reply about me or about the content? It's not really about MY opinion, it's about the definition and clarity of the word platform. A third opinion is clearly needed because this dicussion has stopped being about the content, and has started being about edit-counts. Arwineap (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────── Yeah, I really don't get your issue with them being listed. The source for them both being announced is here, and we've always listed platforms that were officially announced. Should we remove platforms from games that have yet to be released? Silly this is even up for discussion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dissident93, both this talk as well as the dispute resolution way are nonsense. Lordtobi () 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, we do use Linux instead of SteamOS as a platform right? Pretty sure I saw somebody else say we should, but don't think it was ever made official. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
SteamOS is just a Linux distribution, most people nowadays use distributions like Ubuntu, but, yes, Linux defines the operating system platform for Linux-based OS and Linux itself and, thus, is to be used. Lordtobi () 21:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Not only does an announcement not fit the definition of platform, but it's just lip service to the linux community; no work has been publically done or released, just a twitter post, and maybe a blog honorable mention. The annoucement of the linux port has been clearly edited to be shown as a future release date, so why is it acceptable to falsely claim that the software is able to run on linux? It's not true. Readers have an expectation of what platform means, because it's a word clearly defined: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Platform-only_cats_.26_emulation and Computing_platform Arwineap (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not what makes a platform, but what is implied by the guidelines. I admit that it was stated somewhat unclearly in the template documentation, so I tried to change it, which is currently up for discussion. Outcome of the discussion over at "Announced platforms" will give the final result of what is currently up for discussion on this page. Lordtobi () 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Though SteamOS is a Linux distribution, marketing wise, Valve market it as SteamOS. The same way that Sony market its FreeBSD platform as PlayStation 4. I do not want to list all the distributions, but I do want to list platforms that the normal consumer can recognize and this includes SteamOS. I believe that SteamOS should be part of the list because it is marked so. Else, should Android also be listed as xLinu on a mobile wiki page? People refer to Android because it is such a recognized brand name. Lets help the normal consumer here and add SteamOS please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deragon (talkcontribs) 17:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You are going to need to ask WP:VG for that. And SteamOS can run any Linux game natively and vice versa, which is not the case for Android games on SteamOS/Linux. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone better than me please add this as the citation for the Hockey Mode extension?Edit

Can't figure how to work the cite out. (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I fixed it. The issue was a missing bracket } at the end of the tag. I also re-wrote it to be more future friendly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A psyonix dev said that Rocket League was not based on the Onslaught game modeEdit

Currently it says "Rocket League is a sequel to Psyonix's Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars, released in 2008 for the PlayStation 3, itself an idea based on the Onslaught game mode introduced in Unreal Tournament 2004."

but Psyonix-Jerad said in the forums "We actually designed and created the Onslaught Mode in UT2004, and all of the vehicles in UT2004, UT3, Gears of War, and UE4. No, Rocket League (or SARPBC) is not inspired by that mod. That mod is great, but the idea came of it's own."

he also mentions an original game, or prototype, called Crash Course.

MrMonstr (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We can't use forum posts, but I understand the point, and I think it's just the summary terseness that is confusing. It's clear from the body that the only real connection is that they started to try to make a game using Unreal vehicles in some manner. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

EA turned down Rocket LeagueEdit

This article could be of interest for us, however, I currently do not have the time to insert the information. @Dissident93 maybe? Lordtobi () 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this originally, but I could find a way to word it into the dev section. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood PrincipleEdit

@Dissident93: HP had been a part of the article until a source had stated that Mike Ault is a part of it, when it was removed before prior consensus. The current lineup includes five tracks from HP, of 22 songs, 15 are by Ault, 5 by HP, 1 by Kevin Riepl, and 1 by Adam B. Metal. (src) According to the infobox template, major composers are to be added; obviously, Ault is the major-est composer, but HP also a major role with slightly over 20% of the songs contributed. The main question is now, is HP to be added although Ault is part of it? In my opinion, yes. Since there are more people involved in HP than just Ault. Lordtobi () 12:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that to me stands out is that I would think composed songs are those specific for the game, and not previously released tracks incorporated into the soundtrack (as that requires no additional "contribution"). Now, I think I remember that HP did compose some new songs for the game, but that should be affirmed before including that; some of HP's songs do appear to be previously releases so we have to make that distinction. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Well you can't really confirm that Ault wasn't the only composer for HP, so I don't think they should be added due to that. Just assuming otherwise would be WP:OR and unverifiable, wouldn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Hey, Salvidrim!, this article seems amazing! How isn't it at GA yet? Anyways, I've nominated the article. Hope you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuy (talkcontribs) 19:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rocket League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 23:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I will give this a full review, but since the maintenance template in Reception has not been met, it is likely that I will fail it for lack of completion on top of everything else. Cognissonance (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Cognissonance Ugh, please don't fail this. I'll address the maintenance template as soon as possible. I didn't notice it. Please. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


  • "A physical retail version for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One began being distributed by 505 Games in June 2016" — Improve prose: "505 Games started distributing a physical retail version for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in June 2016".
  • Mention criticism.


  • An image illustrating the gameplay would be helpful.
  • "Players' cars have the ability to jump to hit the ball while in mid-air. The players can also pick up a speed boost by passing their cars over marked spaces on the field, enabling them to quickly cross the field, use the added momentum to hit the ball, or ram into another player's car to destroy it; in the latter case, the destroyed car respawns moments later. A player may also utilize boost when in the air to propel themselves forward in flight, allowing players to hit the ball in the air. Players can also perform quick dodges, causing their car to do a short jump and spin in a given direction, which can be used to nudge the ball or gain positioning advantage over the other team" is unsourced.
  • "shooting the ball close to goal" — Fix grammar: "shooting the ball close to a goal".
  • "Matches are typically five minutes long, with a sudden death overtime if the game is tied at that point. Players are awarded points for certain actions in the game, such as touching the ball first, scoring a goal, assisting in a goal, centering the ball, shooting the ball close to goal, saving a ball from going into a goal, or winning the game. These points contribute towards a meta-game experience system, unlocking decorative rewards for players to personalize their cars which include: Rocket Trails, Toppers, Antennas, Decals, Car Bodies, and Wheels" is unsourced.
  • "A single player Season mode allows a player to work with computer-controlled teammates and opponents offline, while casual online games can be played with other online players, with computer-controlled opponents filling in for empty slots or players that drop out of matches. Points earned in matches contribute towards a cumulative skill level for the player which is used to help in matchmatching. Rocket League also includes a competitive ranked online mode, where players compete in various tiered ranks within game seasons, with victories or losses raising or lowering a player's rank, respectively; players are rewarded with in-game decorative items reflecting their final rank at the end of each season" is unsourced.
  • "that adds "mutators" game modes" — Improve flow: "that adds game modes known as "mutators"".


  • Move Game Developers Choice Awards image to Reception.
  • "where among other contract projects they worked to try to find a way to make racing the Unreal vehicles in a physics-based engine enjoyable" — This is hard to read without being immediately confused.
  • "but found none of the publishers seemed interested" — Simplify: "but none of the publishers seemed interested".
  • "The studio continued on to other projects, though kept the idea" — Minimize repetition and improve flow: "Psyonix continued on to other projects, but kept the idea".
  • "such as by slowing the pace of the game, and to allow players of all skill levels" — Improve flow: "such as slowing the pace of the game and allowing players of all skill levels".
  • "Psyonix' team recognized past difficulty that they had with Battle-Cars" — Improve punctuation and prose: "Psyonix's team were aware of past difficulties with Battle-Cars".
  • "tracks the movement of all the cars and actors and allows them" — Improve flow: "tracks the movement of all the cars and actors, allowing them".
  • "the game state across players based on the stored physics states, enabling players" — Improve flow: "the game state across players based on the stored physics states, which enabled players".
  • "as to enable cross-platform play" — Improve flow: "so as to enable cross-platform play".
  • "the size of the game's title as to appear fully" — Improve flow: "the size of the game's title in order to appear fully".
  • "in speaking on Rocket League's development" — Fix grammar: "speaking on Rocket League's development".

Promotion and releaseEdit

  • "missed this deadline as to implement" — Simplify: " missed this deadline to implement".
  • "the first game in a new initiative they are taking" — Past tense: "the first game in a new initiative they were taking".
  • "Only after they had neared the release date that they found Microsoft taking the initiative" — Improve prose: "Only after they had neared the release date would Microsoft take the initiative".
  • "Psyonix stated they determined" — Simplify: "Psyonix determined".
  • "he sees the ability to expand to include cross-platform play will help establish" — Simplify: "the expanded inclusion of cross-platform play would help establish".

Downloadable contentEdit

  • "with downloadable content, with the intent to keep all gameplay updates as free" — Improve flow: "with downloadable content, intending to keep all gameplay updates free".
  • This section has too many sentences containing dates.
  • "Also included in the patch are a number of painted items and certified items" — Improve flow: "Also included in the patch are a number of painted and certified items".
  • "The funds from microtransactions is to be" — Fix grammar: "The funds from microtransactions would be".
  • {{xt|"a major update titled "Aquadome" launched, which features a new arena"]] — Improve flow: "a major update titled "Aquadome" launched, featuring a new arena".
  • "In September 2015, Psyonix held a cross-promotion with Torn Banner Studios, adding two free new flags themed after Torn Banner's Chivalry: Medieval Warfare" does not cite a source.

Professional competitionEdit

  • "discussed looking to use the game more in eSports" — Improve prose: "were looking to use the game in eSports more".
  • "Rocket League Championship Series, with the finals taking place in August 2016 with a $55,000 prize pool" — Improve flow: "Rocket League Championship Series;' the finals took place in August 2016 with a $55,000 prize pool".


  • Expand section with coverage from reviews.
  • Write in the past tense.
  • "After the E3 2015 event, Rocket League received multiple nominations and won several awards, including PlayStation Universe's "Best Sports Game of E3" and Gaming Trend's "Best Multiplayer Game of E3"." and "At The Game Awards 2015 in December, Rocket League won the award for Best Independent Game and Best Sports/Racing Game, and was nominated for Best Multiplayer. At the 19th Annual D.I.C.E. Awards in February 2016, Rocket League also won the award for Sports Game of the Year, Outstanding Achievement for Online Gameplay and the D.I.C.E. Sprite Award. Rocket League was awarded the Best Design at the 2016 Game Developers Choice Awards. At the 2016 SXSW Gaming Awards, Rocket League was awarded the "Excellence in Multiplayer" prize. Rocket League won three BAFTA Games Awards for Multiplayer, Sports, and Family, and was nominated for two others, Best Game and Game Design." should ideally be placed in their own section after Sales.


  • Attack of the Fanboy (sources 69 and 94) and (source 57) do not appear on the WP:VGRS list of reliable sources.
  • Sources 37 and 71 need a filled-in website= parameter.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Gameplay should be illustrated and Development will also be in need of this once its current image is appropriately moved to Reception.
  7. Overall: It is clear to me that Rocket League is not ready for GAN right now. Knowing what needs to be done, however, will make the next review go much smoother.
    @DatGuy: You are free to nominate the article again once the concerns are met. Cognissonance (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Cognissonance, what do you mean by "write in the past tense" in your review? Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Here's an example: "the simple core concepts belied the game's true depth, which stemmed from a developed understanding". Cognissonance (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Does that fit though? In "the simple core concepts", it refers to the concepts of Rocket League. As such, I believe that is the correct way to say it. Are there any GOCE members here for a 3rd opinion? Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Just dropping a quick note to say that the present tense is correct in this case. It's similar to how fictional works like books are discussed. The related concepts are considered to exist in perpetuity, so past tense is unnecessary. —Torchiest talkedits 23:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I always say that imagine if this game was released a hundred years ago. Would most of the tense still feel "right"? Having the article written mostly in past tense is safer, and I don't think it violates any policy. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
OTOH, whether a game was released yesterday or a hundred years ago, it still exists in the present. You don't say the Mona Lisa "was a painting" -- it still is.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Specifically here we are talking about the reviews. And I would think that in time reviews age where they can longer be talked about in present tense. Imaging talking about the first Doom or Quake with reviews in the present tense. It seems wrong to say a 20-year old review is still present. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the game concepts part, "the simple core concepts belie the game's true depth, which stem from a developed understanding," using the present tense, is in agreement with the present perfect tense used in the rest of that paragraph, e.g. "Rocket League has received" and "Some have pointed out". —Torchiest talkedits 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course, as the type of media is something that won't ever change, but reception and legacy of it could, and should be written as past tense just to be safe. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Toxic community?Edit

I don't think there is evidence that this game is more or less toxic than other similar sized online games. The mention of toxic community leads the reader to believe this a bigger than usual problem with Rocket League. It should come with a comparison or be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have removed the line. In review the source it was attached to, it was difficult to find it justified by the source , which was Kotaku's generally positive review of the game, noting only a few nits with initial connectivity issues and some smack between players but in no way denouncing the game or calling it toxic. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Linux and Mac releasesEdit

Where is the announcement of these versions being officially released out of beta later this year? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Linux and Mac versions are identical with the Windows version, despite still being in "beta". As it's highly unlikely that it will actually have an official release now, does anybody think it's fine if we just include September 8, 2016, as the release date in the infobox? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the proposal to list September 8, 2016 as the Mac/Linux release date. The game is fully operational on the Mac as far as I can tell. You might consider adding a (beta) tag after the date to indicate that the release is not "official". Uncle Dick (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where the "end of 2017" official release date claim is from, but if one is not given by the end of this year, we should probably just go with your proposal or just a flat September 8. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rocket League. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


Is the Publishers section accurate? I believe Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Published the Physical editions, at least the EU switch version: (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of different retail publishers, so to simplify we've avoided listing them all; the game's original release remains digital and done by Psyonix themselves. --Masem (t) 02:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The lines between publisher and distributor are rather blurry, so if we do not have a specific publishing claim for a company that brought games to retail (in our case, under license from Psyonix), we should just leave them out (as the distributor infobox field was removed from the template some time ago). Lordtobi () 08:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change the artwork featured in {{Infobox video game}}Edit

I'm proposing a change to feature this artwork as the article's lead image in {{Infobox video game}}. It's an official artwork used for the game, being used for the storefront and packaging of the game's digital and physical releases on Xbox One and Microsoft Store, and physical releases on PlayStation 4 and Nintendo Switch. This artwork will be more useful to a reader in identifying immediately the game the article is written about. The game's art style, and event a hint of its gameplay are telegraphed in this image, along with its setting; things that are only either vaguely or not at all hinted at in a simple display of the game's logo. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Very reasonable, but let's check on a few more options before switching. --Masem (t) 03:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: This is the only other artwork officially used as packaging: the Steam artwork. So, there isn't many options. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 05:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean "opinions", not "options" :P my bad. --Masem (t) 14:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to, assuming it doesn't break any of the overzealous image guidelines. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes for GA reviewerEdit

I'd like to state my preference for any potential GA reviewer for this article to use {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, or any colour or formatting templates extensively when jotting down their points in the review. This way, my replies to those points, and replies to my replies, can be clearly distinguished between the main point and other main points of the review. I would also like to request that each point be numbered from start to finish in order, with the numbering scheme continuing contiguously through all the sections of the review. This way, I can cite in my edit summaries, in the revision history of the article, which edits pertain to which points of the review. Thanks for your understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 04:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Dude, you need to expand the reception section. This was one of the first points I made when I failed the first review. Cognissonance (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cognissonance:   Done – sorry I took a bit long to do so, didn't have much time on my plate earlier in the week. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rocket League/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. JOEBRO64 00:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd add specific mentions of what was praised and criticized, not just "[the game] was critically praised"
  Done – to summarise the "critical reception" section of the article, I've added the passage, ... earning positive reception for its improvements upon Battle-Cars, its graphics and multiplayer gameplay, though some critics were skeptical of the game's physics engine.PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A player may also utilize boostA player may also use a boost
  Done – sentence has been reworded as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  Done – Unlinked as requested, though I should note that I'm of the opinion that each new section should be a refresh for wikilinks, since most readers would only be reading particular sections, and not the article as a whole. Life would be easier for most readers if every section is allowed one wikilink each to a particular subject, excluding things like common nouns or places, of course. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • They had at one point considered having Rocket League as a free-to-play title with potential microtransactions, following along with how games like Valve Corporation's Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 had achieved success.[26] Though they had put in efforts for this free-to-play model, they opted to switch to sell the game once and offer only cosmetic elements as downloadable content, assuring that no players would have any additional advantage beyond their own skill.[28] Too many uses of "they"; needs copyediting.
  Done – I've reworded and clarified the passage as follows: Psyonix had at one point considered having Rocket League as a free-to-play title with microtransactions, inspired by Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2's free-to-play systems. Though they had put in efforts to establish a free-to-play model, Psyonix decided instead to switch to a traditional sale method, and offer only cosmetic elements as downloadable content, assuring that no players would have any additional advantage beyond their own skill.PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Though the Xbox One version initially lacked this feature at launch I'd cut "initially"
  Done – rephrased as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Psyonix plans to continue to support Rocket League with downloadable content I'd link to downloadable content and add (DLC) in parenthesis after it.
  Done – wikilinked and clarified through parentheses as requested – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • it was announced that the Awkward/weasel words—who announced it?
  Done – the phrase has been reworded and clarified as follows: Psyonix and Xbox announced at The Game Awards 2015 that the game would be ported to Xbox One, and it was released on February 17 ...PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Professional competition
  • A $75,000 Rocket League tournament will be held at the Summer X Games during July 2017, with finals to be streams on ESPN3. Has this happened yet?
  Done – I've updated the entire passage, and added two new citations. The passage now reads as follows: A $75,000 Rocket League tournament was held outside U.S. Bank Stadium at the Summer X Games in July 2017, with the finals streamed live on ESPN3. NRG eSports claimed their first live Rocket League championship by winning the tournament, defeating Gale Force eSports in the final.PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rocket League, upon release and throughout its lifetime, has been given positive reviews by video game critics. Positive feedback was aimed towards the game's multiplayer gameplay, and its graphics and visuals, especially in comparison to Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars; later reviews praised the player experience in the game. Criticism was mostly aimed at the game's physics engine, though a consensus on the issue has been mostly unclear, with some defending the engine. This entire statement is unsourced. You also don't need to link to Supersonic again, and issue is a word that should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Euphemism).
 Y Partly done – Wikilink and wording issues have been resolved (issuetopic), but I do not agree with the assertion that the lead paragraph is unsourced. It's a lead; it is a summary of the nitty-gritty of the "Critical reception" section. Everything mentioned in this paragraph is further detained and cited further in the section below. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Anything that can be challenged requires a direct reference. That's why I'm requesting this. Also, the Metacritic scores are listed in prose, which is unnecessary—the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own (WP:MOSVG#Reception). JOEBRO64 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Okay, how do you suggest going about doing this? The only way I can think of is literally chucking the existing citations into the lead, and I think things like "[127][128][129][130][131]" would be quite the ugly sight. I also need clarification on what the problem is with how Metacritic is represented in prose. Does it go into too much detail, or can it be better worded, or something else perhaps? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: I know it looks ugly, but per Wikipedia policy that's what you should do (maybe not that many, though—between two and four should be good). As for Metacritic, just say something like "According to the review aggregator Metacritic, all versions of Rocket League received "generally favorable reviews"". JOEBRO64 19:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 Y Partly done – I've employed a new strategy that I just improvised now, where I use an {{efn}} note to house all the citations supporting the broad claims made in the lead section. However, I disagree with the removal of important information in regards to the Metacritic score itself. If film and music articles can have aggregate scores featured, why not video game articles, especially when most video game articles do already? The Metacritic score is quite important to a lot of readers. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Mr Pinkerton'"Mr. Pinkerton"
  Done – typo has been fixed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • All refs look good to me.
  DoneFile:Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1.jpg as been removed as requested. The {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} on the file's page has been updated also, to reflect this change. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

JOEBRO64 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Nice work. JOEBRO64 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: I've updated the article to implement your recommendations. I've made a note of my changes under each of your points in the review, and the corresponding edits can be seen in the edit history of the Rocket League article. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: OK. This is good to go. JOEBRO64 21:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Rocket League Championship SeriesEdit

Given its significance within the game, should RLCS now have its own wikipedia page? M00036 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@M00036: I don’t see a problem with it, as long as the article is substantial and any relevant content on the Rocket League article is properly truncated, summarised, and linked to a new “Rocket League Championship Series” article with a {{Main article}} or {{See also}} hatnote. From what I’ve seen from the past year and a half of scrolling through video game news websites, I feel that it has notability on par with the likes of the Overwatch League and Smite World Championship, and far greater than the likes of the Call of Duty Championship. I don’t think I’m knowledgeable enough in the tournament to be able to write up an article myself, but I’d gladly support whoever can and wants to! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I can help if an article is created, but I don't feel strong enough about it to create it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Article now created - please add more information if you have it! M00036 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the teams/format, but I provided some minor fixes to the grammar and added categories. For now, it just needs more sources, which should be easy enough to get. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Italicizing video game titles, in the titles of cited worksEdit

The Rocket League name is part of the text of the title of dozens of this article's cited works. (For example, the title of a cited article might be "Everyone Loves Rocket League.") Sometimes, in the titles of these cited works, Rocket League is italicized; sometimes it's enclosed in single-quotes; sometimes it is not set off by any special typography.

I could not find a Wikipedia style guide instruction, regarding whether to italicize the title of a video game when it appears in a cited work's title, and does not conform (as it is written, on the cited work's own off-Wikipedia web page) to Wikipedia-standard italicization practices. In the absence of clear style-guide instructions, I have italicized all such video game titles that occur in this article's cited works' own titles.

My reasoning for doing so stands upon three things:

  1. our directive, as editors, to "Be bold"
  2. a desire to not allow the irregular, improper (and most probably unintentional) mistakes in other websites' typography to be repeated here
  3. the relatively minor nature of the change—since the application of italicization to words, in the format in which cited works' titles appear here in a Wikipedia article's cited-work link, does not change the textual construction, or the semantic meaning, of the cited work's title —catsmoke (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
We generally have not done that but its not to say its wrong: if you take a title of an article as a quotation, theN MOS:QUOTE applies, and specifically MOS:CONFORM, which states "Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing with in words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to italics or (rarely) boldface. For titles of books, articles, poems, and so forth, add italics or quotation marks following the guidance for titles." I know the first part of that is applied all the time to title (thanks, IGN) so there's no reason the second would not apply too. --Masem (t) 13:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, for your prompt input, and for the information you've shared. I agree that MOS:CONFORM covers this situation (although I think you've not quoted the part most salient to this particular circumstance), and I interpret it as supporting what I did, and calling for such editing as being correct and desirable (and closely relating with my point number two, above). Unfortunately, my edit has already been reverted. The reasoning of the editor who did so, according to his description in his Edit summary, was not sound. He has made an error, by reverting my work. Yet I'm not inclined to try to persuade him of the facts, which are that my contribution was both proper and also improved the article in a way which was subtle yet still significant. I appreciate the attention that this matter received. —catsmoke (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018Edit

change mid-2018 to early 2019 KUspade (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done but next time make it more clear where exactly you want this changed, because there could be multiple things with this wording. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Citations on opinionsEdit

@Dissident93 and TheJoebro64: So Metro has been flagged as a potential unreliable source over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. However, a Metro citation was used here to cite an opinion on a video game, not a fact, but was removed anyways. Opinion ≠ verifiable fact, and we need as many opinions from notable published sources to gauge a critical consensus around the game for the "Reception" section. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Unreliable source, meaning we should avoid using it as much as possible. Besides, it not like what was removed was critical to the article, it was just some guy's opinion in a section where we already have plenty of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dissident—if Metro is unreliable, we shouldn't be using it. It's good to have a meaty reception section but it doesn't need to be a comprehensive list of every review the game received. I'd only support keeping it if the author was someone notable (like Jim Sterling, for instance), but even that would be sort of a stretch. JOEBRO64 01:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We would allow Metro to be used under WP:RSOPINION even if the work is deemed unreliable. That said, the video game review box is not to stuff every review possible but should be the top 5 to 7 + aggregators to give a flavor of the review scores. At this stage, Metro would be unnecessary. --Masem (t) 02:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

source for KITT and Ecto-1Edit

From the article:

In 2016, Psyonix announced their wish to include KITT from the 1980s television series, Knight Rider.[1]

According to KITT and Ecto-1 are in the game. -- (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Now included via secondary sources. Lordtobi () 13:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Rocket League" page.