Talk:24: The Game

Card game?

What about the card game where you try to get the card's numbers to add up to 24? Should there be a disambig tag at the start of this to clarify? Lenoxus 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but agree. I did a search for "24 (game)" expecting to find an article on the card game, not a video game. Shy 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Jibbles | Talk 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

I completely removed the entire character section - it's completely un-needed. If someone wants a description on the characters, they should go to one of the 24 articles, or gamefaqs. As it was, it was completely cluttering up the article. Feel free to challenge me on this. +Falcon9x5 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-add the key characters. I agree with the removal minor ones, though. --Jasonflare 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was considering it, but then looked at the section [1] again. There's no way I'm readding the characters in their previous form - the information was just taken out of an instruction booklet or something. Perhaps the characters names, but definitely not the summaries - "Jack will stop at nothing to make sure not only Los Angeles, but also the rest of the United States is safe from terrorism." Not happening. +Falcon9x5 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed Sally Kretschmann to Thomas, must have been a typo ...Edwin

General tidy up/ proofing

I've had a stab at improving the tone of this entry, seeing as it's flagged as not being 'up to standard'.

I've gone through and cleaned up a number of typos and grammatical errors, as well as just generally trying to make it sound a bit more professional. I've left the section on the NTSC glitch pretty much untouched, as I don't own a copy of the game and therefore am not sure exactly what it refers to.

Anyway, hope it's up to scratch. Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this entry already. Long live 24!

BTW, this is my first contribution, so if I've stuffed anything up then please go easy on me!

Nmb882003 01:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidied up 'Glitches' section

I've tidied up the section on 'Glitches' to make it a bit more reader-friendly. I've avoided changing the content as I don't actually own the game so i'm not entirely sure what it's talking about! This said, can someone with a copy of the game have a read through it just to make sure that it still makes sense? cheers

Nmb882003 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay

The article notably covers the story elements of the game and very significantly (IMO) glosses over the gameplay. I'd like to expand that section, however briefly, if that's not an issue for anyone. Also, regarding the bonus features... when you unlock a bonus character, is all you're doing unlocking a 3d look at at the model? Seems kinda pointless. TheHYPO 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Bonus Features, how exactly do I view them? I've unlocked several of them, but I don't know how to view them. I know it's under "Previously on 24..." Cubs Fan 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows what Adrenaline actually does (I've never used it), can then add it under the part about health packs and such. Thanks TheHYPO 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hour By Hour

Perhaps the Plot and each hour can be subcategories (bold) so it'll be easier to find things? -WarthogDemon 09:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Take Note

Jack did not break into the CIA for Madsen, he broke into the NIA (National Security Agency). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.187.49 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up Sugestions

I'm not sure if this article is still active/in edit, but I've enclosed some suggestions on how to improve it.

• Lead paragraph - I'd end this after the sentence ending 2K Games
• Structure & Gameplay - bring this to the top of the article below the lead paragraph, introducing the style of play. Try to cut down on gaming jargon and game-specific terminology, instead focusing on the styles of play and how they are used. I'd also consider condensing this section to improve how it reads, leaving out facts which don't add to the description. This section also needs citations. Add an in-game screenshot if available.
• Storyline and plot section needs to be rewritten to change it from a list of bullet points to descriptive prose
• Characters - Adjust this, breaking out of a table and instead listing the main characters and highlighting their involvement in the storyline (antagonist, protagonist etc).
• Features - Many of these can be added to the Structure and Gameplay section. Do that and see what's left oer and see if it warrants an additional section.
• Reviews - See if this can be expanded to discuss the game's reception and critical acclaim. Mention the bafta award here. Explain what critics liked about the game and what they thought was novel, or what wasn't well recieved about it.

The content is definately there, but it needs work to improve. if you need any further information, please shout either here on my talk page. If you need any help, just ask. Gazimoff (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a new draft version linked from my userpage. Once done, I'll link it back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft Revamp of 24: The Game

I've just finished giving 24: The Game a complete overhaul. I haven't put the new version in place yet, so it's currently in a sandbox at Draft of 24: The Game. I'd like to invite people to take a look and let me know if it's worth swapping over the old article for the new one, or if I've made any ommisions. Also, if you have any reccomendations, I'd be happy to hear them. This is my first attempt on doing something on this large a scale, so any input would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks for any time you can spare! Gazimoff (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

After being encouraged to Be Bold, the update is in place. Please feel free to discuss!Gazimoff (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Gazimoff. A few suggestions to further help improve the article:

• I would trim the "Gameplay" section; the fewer exact details the better. We do this to make it more accessible to a general reader not familiar with the game or even video games for that matter. Along this line, I would combine the "Interrogation" and "Computer puzzles" sections into a "Mini-games" section.
• I would move the "Characters" section into the "Plot" section and have two subsections; 1) Characters 2) Story
• The other thing I would do is go through the article and add some more citations. You probably have enough sources to cite most everything. Like the statement "The puzzle games were also recieved badly, being described by Gamespot as '15 shades of easy and 20 shades of terrible'." Add a citation using the review as the source. And the statement "Most of the game's missions take place in third-person shooting format." I'm sure a review or preview stated something like this and could be used to cite it.
• The last thing is to do a massage of the text and double check for grammar and spelling. Sometimes I'll copy the text from the page and paste it into a word processor like MS Word and run a spelling/grammar check. Sometimes it finds some things that aren't a problem, but other times it finds some silly mistakes that I can't believe I overlooked. The other things is to get another pair of eyes to do a copy edit.

Anyway, all in all it looks real good. I think that if you take care of the issues listed, this could easily pass a Good article nomination. If you have any questions, like how to do the multiple citations with a single reference, just let me know. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I think I've met all your points now. The Gameplay section has been condensed further, although I'm still not sure if it couldn't do with a more ruthless attack with red pen. I've moved around the other sections as you've suggested and added multiple citations after working out how to do it from reverse engineering a couple of FA grade entries. I've also run it through the spelling and grammar checker, but I'm not sure if everything's been caught, so if you notice anything please yell. Many thanks for your help with this!Gazimoff (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

If this article is already an A-class article, then it shouldn't be under GA review. Noble Story (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is OK for an A-class article to have a GA review and it is OK for an article to be both A-class and GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, do you mind showing me where it says that? No offense to you, I just want to see. In any case, if an article is already is an A-class article, then why would you want it to be an A-class article? A-class articles are judged according to the FA criteria, which is a higher standard than GA. So if it's already passed at A-class review, it'll be pretty sure to pass GA as well. Noble Story (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

This article needs two main things:

• A reworked lead section per WP:LS, specifically, a second paragraph summarising the article.
• More wikification, as in, more relevant internal links to other Wikipedia articles.

With the above two 'solved' I'd propose A-class, so I'll leave it on the list for a little longer. User:Krator (t c) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get on to it later tonight Gazimoff (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these issues have been resolved now. Please let me know if there's anything more that you think is missing.Gazimoff (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Two members, Krator and Kung Fu Man, have agreed on an A rating for the article (after the above points were dealt with?), however I think this is a little generous considering the article still has several issues. Which isn't to say the article's progress isn't good, it certainly is. I've upped the rating to B since it's well beyond a start class, in order to keep progressing with it could I suggest the following:

• The article currently contains two quite invasive FMV shots or TV series photos yet no screenshots showing gameplay - that's quite an omission and something which would need rectifying before higher ratings could really be justified. The watermarks on the photos aren't good anyway, if nothing else could they be reduced in size?
• The story section has one single citation. It might be that the IGN walkthrough contains everything you need to reference this section but right now it needs citing, again quite a glaring problem.
• The article lead is still a little thin, no suggestions on what could go in but it doesn't quite feel like a summary of the article, yet.
• There's some very short paragraphs and a couple of subheadings with scarcely anything under them, folding them in to larger paragraphs or sections would get away from stop-start-stop interruptions in the flow. The vehicle control subheading contains nothing which demands the break in text, the same information could be folded into the third-person shooting subheading and both subheadings being removed - leaving minigames as the only subheader. The characters subheading contains details which could very easily be tucked behind the first paragraph of story, IE instead of having subheadings there could just be the plot heading. It would look like this:

Plot

24: The Game takes place 6 months after Day 2 and 2 and a half years before Day 3. In a similar way to the TV series, it can be split up into three sections or chapters. Section one revolves around an attack on Jim Prescott, while section two covers an attack on the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU). Section three covers a major terrorist attack and attempt to gain access to nuclear weapons.[4] A large number of characters from seasons two and three feature in 24: The Game. Each uses the original actor's likeness and voice acting. Main characters returning include Jack Bauer, Tony Almeida, Michelle Dessler, Chase Edmunds, David Palmer, Max, Kate Warner, Ryan Chappelle and Ryan Chappelle. Peter Madsen was voiced by Christian Kane.[3] Then the next paragraphs just as they are.

• The BAFTA nomination can be integrated into the first paragraph of reception.
• The single sentence covering the mobile phone version is stuck on the end of the article, citing two full-sized reviews. If it's supposed to be covered within this article then it needs covering, if not then does it need to be mentioned at all?
• Reception is a little underfed, there must be a couple more facets of the game which reviewers found relevant?
• At least one citation (a GameSpy review) doesn't credit the author, please check to make sure writers have been credited if their names are available.
• "The studio had recently finished the well received Primal and Ghosthunter." - well received? A vague statement which doesn't appear to be backed up by the reference, it doesn't need saying.
• Check for redundancies, empty text, for instance the sentence about the mobile phone game begins with "As a note". It's already noted since the reader is reading it. "24: The Game was originally planned to be released worldwide in the fall of 2005.[14] The game ended up being delayed, finally being released in North America on February 27, 2006[2] and in Europe on March 17, 2006 (March 16, 2006 in Ireland, due to St. Patrick's Day)." Try 24: The Game was originally planned to be released worldwide in the fall of 2005,[14] but was delayed. The game was released in North America on February 27, 2006; in Europe on March 17, 2006 and on March 16, 2006 in Ireland, due to St. Patrick's Day. If you can say something in fewer words without making it awkward then do so.

Hope some of the above examples are of use. Some of it does involve adding content which takes time, but most is just fine tuning. When the article's more shipshape it could pass good article nomination, which would also mean it's got another check by another editor, an A rating beyond that is the icing on the cake. Thanks for putting in the effort to build the article this far, it's good work. Someoneanother 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your ersponses - it's great to get another set of eyeballs on the article. I'll try to incorporate your suggestions over the next few days. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone through and made the following changes, as reccomended.

• Screenshots - These are left over from the original pre-cleanup article and come from press releases. I'll see if I can dig out any gameplay shots, but in the meantime resizing the images would help a lot.
• Story citations - I'm not sure how to expand this without repeatedly citing the walkthrough and reviews I already have. I'd appreciate suggestions here
• Lead - has been expanded as per MOS. Citations have been removed from the lead, also per MOS
• Gameplay - I've edited the starting paragraphs here to reinforce the concept of three broad mission types - shooter, driving and puzle. The three subheadings relate to those three mission types.
• Plot - merged subheadings into one section as per reccomendation
• Development - tweaked citations, removed text that couldn't be backed up by citations. Streamlined comments. Found something that had been mis-cited, used citation for it's original purpose (inspirations)
• Reception - Located authors for sources where possible. Content rewritten, covering positive and negative aspects evenly
• Mobile/cellphone version is there for comparison and disambiguation. If it is felt to be superfluous, I'll remove it.

Many thanks for your help thus far! Hopefully we can nail the last few items now.Gazimoff (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also changed one image to an in-game screenshot. Apologies for the wartermarking - they were the only ones released by Fox that haven't been stamped everywhere by review publishers. I've shrunk them down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks to you for your efforts, it's progressing in leaps and bounds, some feedback:

• Downsizing the images as a stop-gap is a big improvement over the huge slabs that were there, when you do find the time there should be some choice screenshots to choose from.
• If the walkthrough actually covers each paragraph in the plot then I'd suggest just referencing it at the end of each paragraph, all it's doing is confirming that those details came from a reliable source. Plot merge looks good.
• Lead's good, I'd just tack that loose sentence to the ones above it to leave two small paragraphs.
• The fixes to gameplay are good but, to me at least, they've reinforced how redundant the first two sub-headings are. The first and second paragraphs (before the third-person subheading) are crying out to be united as the opening paragraph of gameplay, they're a broad description. As soon as you've passed the first subheading, the first thing you read is that this is the guts of the game. In effect, the reader is being interrupted before being told that the interruption wasn't necessary, subheadings should be about deviation from the heading or a marked change in direction. Third-person shooter = core gameplay, it's neither. The next subheading down contains less text than one of the bullet-points in the minigames subheading. The intention may be there to divide the gameplay into three, but the coverage of the driving elements suggests that in terms of this article describing the information to readers it belongs as a couple of sentences within gameplay and nothing more. The sniper info fits at the end of the third-person section, why couldn't this go with it?
• "Some missions involve a first-person shooting variant. This mainly involves sniping - sometimes with a sniper rifle, sometimes with a different weapon. The format is similar to use of a sniper rifle in the normal third-person missions, but it lasts for the entire mission.[1]" Some missions involve sniping using first person shooter gameplay, these missions resemble the use of a sniper rifle during normal missions but the player cannot switch to a third-person view. In this case the weapon doesn't dictate the difference in gameplay, the fixed first-person view does.
• Development and reception are rosy, well done.
• The cellphone sentence means the reader happily goes through the article and is just about to wrap things up when they're suddenly told about something else and given no indication of what this other game is and why it's relevant to the article they've just read through. If its only function is disambiguation then I suggest you remove it, since it's not pointing at anything and throws up a bunch of questions WP doesn't currently answer. If it is for comparison then it needs comparing in every sense - gameplay, development, release dates etc. in infobox, more reception details.

That's it, thanks again for your work. Someoneanother 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've performed further updates as follows:

• Gameplay Screenshot - the Interrogation scene under Mini Games is a gameplay screenshot. I'm trying to source another one that does not include a review site logo, but this may take a while.
• Lead - tightened up paragraphs
• Gameplay - furthr tidy after taking onboard suggestions
• Cellphone note - nuked
• Plot - walkthrough referenced. Only other reference is Wiki24, which I'm not sure is reliable

Hopes this clears up the remaining sections. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me, you are the warchief. Now the reader can go from start to finish through a well-written, well-spaced and broad article, referring to reliable sources. Other wikis are things to avoid like the plague when referencing, so long as the IGN walkthrough actually confirms what is here then that's just dandy. The only other things I could suggest would be getting an image of the third-person shooter mode and inserting it in the article, double-checking the end of paragraphs for citations (can cross-referencing be used to fill any gaps, do other sources exist which can?).

I'm raising the article's status to A, bar some minor referencing needs and that screenshot there's nothing else to really go at. From here there's two options, either list the article at peer review so hopefully other members will give it a once-over, or nominate the article for GA status. There's a backlog at GA, unfortunately, but since the article has come so far it's got to be worth pushing for. Someoneanother 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help and advice. I'll probably put the article in for Peer Review next, before going to GA status, as I'm after a bit of a 24 breather to give me a chance to work on some other articles. One's a new article from scratch while the other one is a cleanup. Watch this space! Gazimoff (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Ok, the article is stable, has good images, has reliable sources, writing seems good, development fairly comprehensive. So far, so good. Here are some things to fix now, and some thoughts for FA;

• Wikilink all the publishers in your references such as [[IGN]]
• Write detailed rationales for your images, meaning say exactly what am image shows and why it is important to show it.
• Rewrite the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Development section, it is unclear
• Check Gamerankings for their score to add to the reception box.
• Find some sales data, how many sold etc.
• Any information on how they made the games music or sound effects?
• Any reception on what reviewers thought of the audio/music?
• Check and see if Sutherland or the other actors commented on their participation in the game.

Do that, and you will be set for GA. For FA, copyedit it a lot, that is the usual issue for this kind of article. Let me know when you've done this stuff :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! In response:

• I've gone through each referenceand wikilinked the publisher
• I've updated the rationale for each image
• I've rewritten the specified sentence. It was originally intended to mention previous critically acclaimed games from the studio. This was pretty much superfluous and was removed in a previous edit. As a result, the sentence no longer made any sense, so I've removed the links to previous games and restructured the sentence.
• Gamerankings aggregates at 64%. This has been included and referenced in the review box.
• I've had a good hunt and can't find any sales data - if there's a typical source for this type of data please let me know!
• Music information was already included in Development. Sound effects have now been added - they were taken from the film.
• The music was really well received - as the soundtrack was also released as an album I got a great review reference from SoundtrackNet. I've now included this in reception. Thanks for the suggestion!
• Had a good scour here and couldn't find any cast interviews on the game. The only interviews lurking around are the ones from Tom Hall and Mark Green that are already referenced in Development.

Hope all this helps. Please let me know if there's anything else you notice and many thanks for taking the time out to do this GAR. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Passed GA, Congratulations!! Strong work on the article, I must say. Now, to prepare for FA, here are my notes;
• Sales figures, definitely take a look around at the other featured video game articles and you will see where they get their figures from, such as Magic box and other sites. I'm sure it would be mentioned in FA so good to get something.
• More Development is always good, such as Kiefer of another actor talking about making the game, or just adding another 2 sentences of development should help.
• I am not a prose master, so definitely should have a through copyedit, perhaps by the league of copyeditors or have a video game peer review specifically about it. This is always the focus of at least half the review, so get that prose to brilliant, you can do it!

Good work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FA push?

The article looks fantastic! Another copyedit, and it should be nominated to be featured, my two cents. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also available for the iPhone OS?

On iTunes, apple was selling a 24 game for the iPhone OS. Should it be metioned on here? Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)