Talk:Bullfrog Productions/Archive 1

Archive 1

The end of Bullfrog Productions

How did this videogame manufacturer go belly-up? If it last released a game in '01, there had to have been news relating to this company going out of business. --68.102.193.78 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's something I've always wondered as well. It's a fairly "recent" event in terms of the internet, and yet there's next to no official word on what actually happened to Bullfrog that I've been able to find. - Darric 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall History Section

It's awful, awful, awful on so many levels. Until it gets sourced, spellchecked, verified and... well, to be honest, rewritten entirely, I'm going to remove it. At the moment it's only an illegible eyesore. - Darric 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation

Back then in 1997 there was a game in development called Creation, had some big developers diary feature in a german computer magazin, never got released, not sure on the details, anyway, might be worth to mention, here a link:

• http://www.thecomputershow.com/computershow/previews/creation.htm

-- Grumbel 14:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bullfrog Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205001756/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/electronics/computer-equipment-personal-computers/7089474-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/electronics/computer-equipment-personal-computers/7089474-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have promoted it to B-class from the originally start class. Here are some brief comments after a brief read through.

• The history section looks very great. It is quite detailed and covered all parts of the company's history.
• the god genre was "misunderstood by everyone" - should mention who give this quote.
• For the legacy section, instead of using point form, I would personally prefer you to describe it in prose.
• The key figures section is completely redundant. The importance of these people should have been already established in the history section already.
• Some sources doesn't look reliable, like this and this
• Did the studio had some sort of unique culture or any philosophy when they were making their games.

— AdrianGamer (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer:

• the god genre was "misunderstood by everyone" - should mention who give this quote. Bullfrog, I think.
• * The key figures section is completely redundant. The importance of these people should have been already established in the history section already. Yes, I wondered about that too, but didn't want to just get rid of it.
• * Some sources doesn't look reliable, like this and this bit-tech is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. For the second one, what I'll say is that Alex Trowers used to work for Bullfrog.
• Did the studio had some sort of unique culture or any philosophy when they were making their games. Well, the article does say they focused on multiplayer, but I'm not sure that counts as a philosophy. But I think they may well have had a culture; I need to check. Adam9007 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am now starting this review. Thank you for the time you have put into this article and your work towards expanding Wikipedia’s quality content. I will add my comments into each of the following sections. Doctor^G  (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Just a few minor grammatical issues that need to be cleaned up and, if you can find them, a few images would add a lot to the article. See below for my comments.  Doctor^G  (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

This is a well written article and some great improvements have been made since becoming B class. Thee following is a list of minor grammar issues that should be addressed:

• In the founding section, "Taurus would develop business software for the Commodore 64" needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
• In the founding section, "Molyneux received the Amiga systems and began writing a database program called Acquisition." needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
• In the early years section, "Electronic Arts were willing to publish" needs to have the tense changed
• In the early years section, "McDonald's had wanted to do a joint game venture with Bullfrog" needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
• In the early years section, "so them being copied was not a concern" needs to be reworded
• In the early years section, "to being a games developer" plurality needs to be fixed
• Taurus is spelled differently in a few places, double check these for consistency

These are all minor and should only take a few minutes to tweak. Doctor^G  (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Citations and references look great, issues raised during B class review have been addressed. Doctor^G  (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage of topic is great Doctor^G  (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV is good, there is good representation of multiple views. Doctor^G  (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars are happening. Doctor^G  (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1. 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):

   Are there any screenshots available of some of the games, pictures of game boxes, or something similar? Including a few of these would make the article pop! Doctor^G  (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Doctorg: I'll get to the rest in a bit: I'm currently working on Theme Park World. As a matter of fact, I may even want to add some bits (such as that game's name change being intended to boost Bullfrog in North America) to this article. Are there any screenshots available of some of the games, pictures of game boxes, or something similar? Including a few of these would make the article pop! Plenty, but I'm not sure how to justify using any of them in this article. I don't think they'll meet WP:NFCC, especially criterion 8. Their omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the company who made it. The games themselves, yes, but not the developer. The only thing I can think of is a screenshot of Theme Park with an explanation that Molyneux wanted gay graphics to appeal to the Japanese (that is already in the body), but even that isn't really necessary. Can you think of reasons why including screenshots or box art of Bullfrog games can significantly increase the reader's understanding of the company? Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, just in general, having a few images of the games you are mentining would definitely add to the article. Or images of the people, etc. I didn't look to see if any were available in the Wikipedia Commons, and I know getting other images added can create other issues. I suggest, if there are no images available in Wikipedia Commons, you leave this part alone.  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg: There's a picture of Peter Molyneux on Commons. Would this be suitable? Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to include it. Doctor^G  (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg: I will be able to take care of the wording tweaks; please ping me if that's not done by the end of this weekend. I will take a look to see if there are other freely available images regarding other items of relevance, since I would prefer not to use the same image as in our article on the man. Were there other remaining concerns above (I don't think so, but I could be blind). --Izno (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks! I think that will do it.

@Doctorg: I took a look at rewriting the sections you had mentioned. These are not quality prose now and they frankly need a total rewrite, not the supposed-quibbles you've mentioned. The flow is misery, jumping from topic-to-topic and not offering resolution on many of those topics, and the questionable quality extends outside those sections. At best, the prose is "okay", not "good", and much of the article reflects that. I think this is beyond the amount of effort I'm willing to expend. --Izno (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: @Doctorg: Fortunately, I'm available. Adam9007 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for taking a look at it, I don't think it is quite as bad as you do, but I'm sure whoever has interest can get it cleaned up. Doctor^G  (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for circling back. let me know when you are ready for me to take another look. Doctor^G  (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm failing this one because there hasn'r been any real movement to update it in the past few weeks. Feel free to requbmit when you have time to get it cleaned up. Doctor^G  (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 14:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are some small, easily fixable issues:

• "At the time of the company's founding, Edgar and Molyneux were already involved in an enterprise called Taurus Impact Systems. Bullfrog was named after an ornament in Taurus' office.". This is unwieldy and the first sentence seems almost random until you read the follow up. I would change this to something like "Bullfrog's name was derived from an ornament in the offices of Edgar's and Molyneux's other enterprise".
• The lead isn't as long as it should be for the amount of content. I would maybe mention after the opening sentence where they were headquartered, and maybe add a third paragraph in the middle to expand more on their history such as it being borne of a need to separate it out from the software side at Taurus. It just jumps from being founded to being acquired by EA to dead.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   If you ever want to take this to Featured Article it would be worth fully archiving sources where possible, as the older ones especially will disappear with time.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The only image has an appropriate copyright. I would look at adding images of important people if possible, there must be at least one of Molyneux, but it won't prevent it passing. Also maybe a screenshot of whatever you think is the best game to represent them to demonstrate the type of era/graphics/gameplay that was their bread and butter. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Darkwarriorblake: How's the article now? I have WP:NFCC concerns about having a screenshot of a game in this article, so that may not be possible. There may also be some bits and bobs from some French magazines I may want to put in, I need to check. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

NFCC is allowed if you can justify it, I think you could justify a single image in this case, probably one from the games' respective articles, but it won't prevent it from becoming a GA here. I've ce'd the lede a little and replaced the Molyneux image with one facing into the article, but beyond that at the GA stage I have no further concerns. It's comprehensive, well sourced, and well organised. Congratulations.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Disestablishment date?

This may seem strange, but I now have 2 sources that say 2004: this source, and Retro Gamer's Company Profile source. However, the Retro Gamer source also says that it was founded in 1985, which is wrong (it also explicitly says 2001 as the year Bullfrog was absorbed into EA and ceased existing, contradicting itself). I find 2004 unlikely for a variety of reasons including the lack of updates to the website (the latest archived info page on the website says the company is in its twelfth year, which would be about 1999/2000), the Retro Gamer source basically saying that the last thing Bullfrog ever did was the PS2 port of Quake 3, and that if it really was as late as 2004, what were they doing since then? For a company this well known, there should be something about it, but I've never seen anything. Could either source have got their info from Wikipedia I wonder? Thoughts? Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the thing is not easy. Retro Gamer's Company Profile source is clearly wrong: not only there are sources that EA has absorbed Bullfrog in 1995, but plans for an acquisition were already in motion in 1993. We are not talking about a few years of difference, 1995-2001 is a too big margin. I would not trust.

On the other hand, however... last game developed, does not coincide with "closure" or merging of the company itself. Three years is a considerable slice of time, it's true. The last words in the section "Post-Molyneux, final years and closure (1998-2001)" say The final title released under the Bullfrog brand, Theme Park Inc., was published in 2001. By the time the game was in development, most of the Bullfrog teams had become part of EA UK, and much of the development was handled by another company. What remained of Bullfrog Productions was then incorporated and merged into EA UK, effectively closing the study. If it took them three years to incorporate the whole and remnant softwarehouse, 2004 might also make sense. VG247 is a reliable source, and the other years cited in the source (1987, 1989, 1995) coincide with the other sources. It's possible that they took info from Wiki (news is from March 22, 2014, this was the article on March 3 same year), but we will never be sure about it. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

1995 was the year Bullfrog was acquired by EA, but Bullfrog still existed as a separate company, albeit as a subsidiary of EA. It wasn't "absorbed" (that is, totally merged) into EA until the 2000s. The Retro Gamer profile at one point says "Bullfrog was disbanded in 2004 when EA combined it with its other UK studios to form EA UK", but later on says "In 2001, the remains of Bullfrog were absorbed into EA and ceased to exist". Clearly, one of these is wrong, and my money's actually on 2004. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak natively English and by answering I understood and said one thing for another. Of course, acquired in 1995, and absorbed in the 2000s.

At this point, VG247 seems a more viable alternative. It's true it may have taken the information from Wiki, but we're not sure. Afterall one of RetroGamer's claims is wrong and as far as I'm concerned, such a contradiction makes RetroGamer practically unreliable. It's really about betting at the end, because one does not have a certainty. Will it worth it? It's a jump in the dark, but if you feel so sure 2004 is wrong, I will approve. Lone Internaut (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)