Talk:The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Major Page Expansion

I have expaned the TCoR: Butcher Bay page's Synopsis section and have changed it to the "Story" section. I have added "Weapons", "Items", "Mission Items", and have started a "Characters" section. If no one else will expand that section, I will get to it eventually, if all possible. BishopTutu 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original plot synopsis, and I don't see any expansion except for the mention of Shirah or something from the director's cut DVD of Chronicles of Riddick. I deleted it cos its wrong; in the game, its clearly Pope Joe who does the surgery. Razoroo 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, note the signature time at the end of the message: this, obviously, was done a long time ago, and, obviously again, someone has changed it. Second, like I have stated in the edit summaries of my recent edits, Pope Joe does jack shit to give Riddick the eyeshine; the voice that begins to talk states that she is giving him a gift: the eyeshine; this is made obvious when, not 2 seconds after she says this, Riddick receives the eyeshine. Pope Joe even seems a bit surprised when he sees Riddick's eyes. There is no proof that Pope Joe does anything to Riddick's eyes, so it will not be stated in the article as such. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't Riddick accuse Pope Joe of doing it? I havn't played it in a while, and I can't because the blasted thing won't work on 360, but I'm sure the cut scenes can be found on Youtube. Also Shirah is debated to be a non-canonical character as she doesn't appear in the standard version of the movie. I recently edited it to take into account both our theories, I think it's best that way. Razoroo 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Riddick accuses Pope Joe of giving him it; Pope Joe responds that he's only fixed his arm. This is explicitly shown and and should be stated in the article as such. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanded the plot again. Razoroo 12:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected a bunch of grammatical mistakes and a few incorrect facts. Sounds much better now and I think we should leave it like that, until I play through the game again somehow. I may have to download all the cutscenes, but I think its pretty accurate. Discuss here if anyone wants to edit it, before you go off and ruin it again please. Razoroo 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ruin anything; my version was completely grammatically correct, except for maybe one thing near the beginning. My version was not as in-universe as the current version is. This current version also has loads of irrelevant information and its size is getting close to violating WP:PLOT; go acquaint yourself with a few Wikipedia policies, the actual TCoR: Butcher Bay plot, and perhaps an English book before accusing someone of ruining something. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah tiger, no need to get all Rambo on me. The edit that you made to the plot synopsis sounded messy, the syntax (oh btw, my English is actually pretty good, I can send you my A-Level results if you want) was poorly structured. I've kept almost everything you've said, just cut a word or an unneccessary comma here and there to make things flow nicely. I didn't accuse you of ruining it, I'm just saying I don't want anyone to mess it up cos its great as it is. Your contributions were useful, don't worry. Try and relax yeah? Razoroo 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I see you've reverted it back to your edit of the plot. Let me give you an example of poor syntax on your part: "After helping him, Riddick gains his trademark "eye-shine" ability. There is a supernatural element to this, as a mysterious voice belonging to a woman named Shirah speaks to him; Riddick thens gains his "eyeshine" ability, which allows him to see in the dark." See here how it mentions "gains eye-shine ability" twice. When I edited it, I made it sound better by putting the two sentences together and deleting one of the eye-shine mentions. You've made it sound like a kids written it. I'm making it sound mature. Another point, although I don't have a note or reference right now, the ending of this game does not lead to Pitch Black. It leads to the events of the remake, Assault on Dark Athena, which in turn will lead to Pitch Black. Gamespot has an interview with the developers somewhere. Razoroo 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, stop referring to Jagger Valance as "the character". Seriously, amateurs write like that. Razoroo 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I distinctly recall saying something along the lines of "actually go read some of the Wikipedia policies before trying to edit," yet you still haven't done so, because, if you did, you would have realized that when someone adds such words as "the character" and things of that nature, its called OUT-OF-UNIVERSE WRITING, and not "amateurish," as you describe it. Don't come here thinking your just some Harvard class writer and then screw stuff up. And also, about my "poor syntax," I'll admit, it was poor, but the only reason I did that is cause of laziness; I'm getting incredibly tired of users coming here and repetitively, and incorrectly, editing articles, even when someoen shows them why they are wrong. It also strikes me funny that you criticize my edits when you put in such incorrect edits, such as when you said that Johns escorts him to the single max area when its really Abbott. Maybe this time around, you will actually go reacquaint yourself with the Butcher Bay plot and use an above-3rd grade level intelligence and go read some Wikipedia policies, and I don't give a shit if i used "poor syntax" just then. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen there's no need to get rude you little dipshit. I wrote the original plot synopsis here and you came and edited it. I didn't mind cos it was improved. I noticed one or two things that were not well written and I corrected them. Since then, the article has been edited numerous times by both of us. Right now, it's good, I like it. However, I'm going to edit a couple of other things. Namely, your use of the term "the character". You don't need to say that, it makes the sentence messy. All you need to say is, Pope Joe, or Johns or Hoxie. Secondly, you're using a semi-colon wrongly, which I'm going to change. Thirdly, I meant that Johns brings Riddick to Butcher Bay, the first area of which is the Single Max prison. Apart from that, there's no mention of Abbot, so either include him in the synopsis (how Riddick kills him etc) or don't mention him at all. People who read the plot here will be wondering what happend to him. And don't get rude to me again; my English is much better than yours. Razoroo 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, calling me a "dipshit" is a violation of a Wikipedia policy, so I'd advise not doing it again. Second, it still amazes me how, even though I told you, in plain letters, the reason why I add the words "the character:" ITS BECAUSE ITS CALLED OUT-OF-UNIVERSER WRITING, SOMETHING STATED IN A WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Screw "messiness;" don't use your own screwed sense of discretion in a place that you don't know jack crap about. Here's a tip: GO READ THE FREAKING WIKIPEDIA POLICIES I DIRECTED YOU TO BEFORE EDITING THIS ARTICLE AGAIN. If you don't do it now, that would be just sad. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 13:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to write in outer-space writing or whatever you call it!!! I havn't seen any other plot synopsis of a game or film that does that! Most of the article is written in "in-universe" anyway, it makes for an easier read! You can't just put one part of it "outer" and the rest "in"! If you wanted to write the whole thing in outer, then it would sound ridiculous. It's supposed to be a PLOT SYNOPSIS, i.e informing people of the plot. Not alienating them and telling them something they already know. Who else could Pope Joe be? Of course he's "the character" Pope Joe, he's not the Unreal game engine! And I do believe you insulted me first so don't give me this Wikipedia Policeman rubbish. Or I'll make like an American and sue you, then go see my shrink. Razoroo 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I see where this is going. I know too well. I think it's best for both of us, or, rather, you, if this discussion discontinued. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. The article is fine as it is now btw. So let's leave it as it is. Despite your precious policies and beloved "outer-space" writing, it's good. Razoroo 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Remake for the 360

Should mention of it be made here?

Yes it should, maybe a short paragraph. If nobody writes one, I don't mind doing it. Razoroo 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OpenGL 1.3 support errror & SBZengine.exe error

==OPenGL 1.3 problem with this game and SBZengine.exe error.

If you are having trouble with the error requires graphic driver support for OpenGL 1.3 and/or sbzengine.exe error and the demo of the games works fine then one solution for The Chronicles of Riddick Escape from Butcher Bay Developers Cut version 1.x is to use the demos version of sbzengine.exe and rndrgl.dll. One can copy them from:

Program Files\Starbreeze Studios\Riddick EFBB Demo\System\Win32_x86_SSE2 to

Program Files\Starbreeze Studios\Riddick EFBB\System\Win32_x86_SSE2

and copy rndrgl.dll from Program Files\Starbreeze Studios\Riddick EFBB Demo\System\Win32_x86_SSE to Program Files\Starbreeze Studios\Riddick EFBB\System\Win32_x86_SSE

This works for Windows XP Pro with SP3 on an AMD 32 bit processor with an NVIDIA graphics card. Also, I tried the patch from sierra and it still did not work but the above did. Mystic Witch 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.118.171 (talk)

GA tally-ho

There's no reason this can't be a GA. My suggestions are as follows:

Comprehensiveness - There should be a Development section. Also, the Reception section needs to be expanded; I'll start working on that.

Layout - The Windows version section and Assault on Dark Athena should probably be subsections of the aforementioned Development section.

List - The credits list isn't necessary as it currently stands. Notable cast should be parenthesized/wikilinked in Plot after character names, or there should be a blurb about each character/actor if there's enough information (like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, for instance).

Let's get to work. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Look for the review to be up in another 4 hours. Thanks,--(NGG) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   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, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   There are a few statements in the plot section that are unsourced like the final one. Are those statements included in the refs given? If not, you can cite the actual game.

That'll be tough for me; I don't own the game and I've never played it. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1. B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

3. Is it neutral?

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

4. Is it stable?

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

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

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

   File:Chronicles of Riddick PC box.jpg has absolutely no summary except for PC cover Add Template: Non-free media rationale. The screenshot in the gameplay section also has basically no summary. Try adding the template I mentioned above. I tried to make the image smaller in the character section and remove the black ends. It's smaller but it would not let me remove the ends so I suggest either getting rid of that screen or uploading another one.

On the subject of the cover, could it maybe be looked into getting a platform neutral version to detract attention from the PC logo. Salavat (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, I have uploaded a neutral cover and replaced the old PC version.--(NGG) 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kool, always good to a have a platform neutral cover on a multi-platform game. Salavat (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just another note from me regarding the character image. The blacks ends have gone, the reason why the didnt appear to dissapear on the first upload would have been a cache problem and would just need a purge or a page refresh kinda thing. Salavat (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a larger summary really necessary? The most important part is the FUR, in my opinion. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that is what NGG is reffering to to, the fUR on both screenshots is non-existent in terms of purpose, best to use the template Non-free media rationale and fill in the blanks, eg: File:Freelance Police screenshot.jpg. Salavat (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to want to address the problem, I did so myself.--(NGG) 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The main problem with this article are the images. Once all these problems are addressed. I will pass the article. You have 5 days to do so or I will fail the article.--(NGG) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE:: Failing due to lack of response to review and still unsourced material.--(NGG) 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ammo is sparse?

Sure, one review says that ammo is sparse, but you get an entire clip from every enemy. Should it actually be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.163.44 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I'm MacMed and I am going to be handling this review. Let's get started :) Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Links

The links are mostly good, there's just a few issues that I listed below. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The glitches link in the reception section is a redirect.

• The Vivendi Universal link in the first paragraph of Development is a redirect.

• The first Chronicles of Riddick' link in the same section is a redirect to the film article, though I think you meant to link it to an article about the video game franchise. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about the target you want.

• The levels link in the Gameplay section is a redirect.

• The enhanced remake link in the lead is a redirect.

Article

• Could you put something about the development in the lead? It summarizes every section but that.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Everything is good, just waiting on the lead fix.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• What do I have to fix? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed the lead. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I will do these tomorrow.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congrats.

A-class assessment

I am requesting to have this article be rated as A-class. If there's any problems that need fixing, let me know. GamerPro64 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary comments:

• Lead section - looks good, bare minimum 3 paragraphs.
• Plot section - game quotes may need to be included.
• Source notes - GameSpot, Metacritic and GameRankings are works published by CBS Interactive, IGN and 1UP are works published by Ziff Davis, and Variety is a work published by Reed Business Information. All dead citations (i.e. 1UP) will have to be replaced with archive links.

I will elaborate a little bit more as I go. Please bear with me here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. Took care of the publishing issues. GamerPro64 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)