Talk:Trespasser (video game)

Name

Surely this game was called "The Lost World: Trespasser"; it was a tie-in with the second film and the logo for The Lost World is on the front of the box.

If you want to get technical, it should probably be "THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK: TRESPASSER". :P I'd rather keep it as short as possible! BlazeHedgehog 11:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have my game CD here and it doesn't mention 'Jurassic Park' at all other than the tiny little logo on the front and back. I don't know whether the name was any more prevalent on the box as I no longer have it. Mark Grant 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got the jewel box, and it doesn't explicitly call the game Jurassic Park: Trespasser, just Trespasser. In any case, a quick Google search turns up many game sites that call it Jurassic Park: Trespasser. --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic content should be CORRECT and this encyclopaedic title is INCORRECT. The page should be called "Trespasser (computer game)" as the game is called TRESPASSER with no confounding elements. An immediate change is required!!!

Nick B. 947 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote "Physics"?

"Like 2004's Half-Life 2, Trespasser features a robust physics system."

First off, the game does not feature a robust physics system, and I don't know why a 1998 being compared to HL2. The section is contradicting, it seems to think "robust" is: "But instead of accurate, per-polygon collisions, Trespasser uses a "Box System", where every object in the game acts as if it is encased in an invisible box. Additionally, Trespasser's Physics are based on the Penalty Force Method, in which, when two objects collide - rather than stopping movement, the two objects push away from one another until they are no longer colliding. This makes stacking objects difficult, and standing on top of objects even harder. It also led to a great deal of a problem called interpenetration; where two objects will collide and then become stuck inside one another, unable to separate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.0.230 (talk) 23:34, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Real-Time Foley System has not been implemented in other games?

CryENGINE2's feature pdf says it uses a "data-based sound system" which apparently works just like Trespasser's real-time foley. I think it is inaccurate to claim that no such system has been implemented similarly since Trespasser. 136.176.100.22 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Swinging Steel Girders with ease

The article claims this was doable in the game, but it seems more like an exagerration of the inconsistancies in the games physics engine. I played it earlier today and distinctly remember the stell girder dragging along the ground due to it's weight when I tried to pick it up.70.78.84.7 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the girder was too heavy to lift. There are other ojects that one could drag but not lift. I think it's still appropriate to say it was inconsistant - one could pick up a metal drum with one hand and toss relatively far. Lime in the Coconut 19:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We all love Trespasser!

Gawd, this article really seems overly fawning, particularly for a game that was released in an incomplete state. Can we tone it down a bit, please? 98.180.195.129 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The reception section needs to explain all the critic flaws, how the gameplay is lacking and other reviewer complaints. I've added the section expand template and will focus on this next. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't realistically see what there is to dislike about this game.

I bought it back when it was released and played it on my 1998 IBM computer, and thought it was amazing. The "hyper-realistic" settings and engine were a breath of fresh air, compared to all the unrealistic and stupid games with unrealistic puzzles that were released before and since. The frame-rate/slowness didn't bother me, as sometimes it would be useful to have the game slow down (particularly if you were being attacked by a Velociraptor or a T-Rex) as it would aid in evasion and centering shots into the enemy.

Also: An Adrenaline Vault review liked the game's originality and some tense moments, but disliked the critically bad flaws such as the slow treks, the lack of a real inventory system, the frustrating interface and there being too many guns lying around.[8]

This is by far one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard a gamer make - as when you're stuck on an island populated by Dinosaurs that are trying to eat you you can never have "too many guns" lying around.

It would make sense, as Ingen's personnel in trying to flee the island or defend themselves, likely left weapons scattered about as a result. Too bad it seems like such a chore for others to put 2 2 together.

The environments were beautiful for their time (and still are) and whenever I see the innards of the Ingen research station in Jurassic Park 3, I get shudders and am reminded of the realistic innards of the research station on the one in the game.

All in all, it was a beautiful and fascinating game to play - but I suppose because it was too realistic in some ways and lacked the Mario Bros.-esque puzzles that some of the reviewers expected, they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --99.155.150.168 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Story section

The Story subsection is very very poorly written and reads like a walkthrough for the game rather than a plot summary - it should be shortened a lot and reduced to including only the important points of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.64.155 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsuitable Links

When I had a look through the article, I noticed a link to another wikipedia article that contains an unsuitable image. Why would someone do that? A person looking at the article wants to learn about the game, not breasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.253 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. That being said, the link was entirely excessive and should have been removed ages ago. —Dinoguy1000 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2009-01-30

It's off to a good start, but there's still quite a bit that needs to be solidified, and more references may help the article too. The biggest thing you should check into for the immediate future is to combine a lot of the smaller paragraphs together and bulk them up from there. Rated C-class, Low importance. This isn't a mid-importance article by the project's standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

"poor graphical elements and boring gameplay" is surely POV.

The biggest issue with Trespasser at the time was that it was marketed as an action shooter when it's really an adventure game.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Trespasser was met with a largely negative reception, but most reviews praised the graphics with the main complaint being that graphics cards of the times couldn't handle them.

"Boring" is not an appropriate word here regardless.70.189.154.46 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I'd argue that the given genre should be "Adventure" rather than FPS/Action.70.189.154.46 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The game has elements of both FPS and adventure but probably more FPS, because of the arm, weapons, health bar, and use of ammunition. There is some interactivity, plenty of exploration and puzzles. It is linear, not multi-path and only a sketchy story is narrated or remembered. It could be described as action-adventure or even the sub-genre survival horror. I have no problem with the addition of adventure as most the characteristics are met but it is not pure adventure. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference material

While digging through the online print archive, and the Wayback Machine in general, I located the following print preview material for this game:

• Adrenaline Vault interview with Seamus Blackley
• Computer Games Magazine preview
• Computer Games Magazine E3 coverage
• Computer Games Magazine news story
• Computer Games Magazine preview 2

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322190244/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1999_01_pg172.jpg, https://web.archive.org/web/20160322190652/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1999_01_pg173.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322194656/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1997_08_pg074.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/19980613184148/http://www.gamespot.com:80/features/e398/index.html
• https://kotaku.com/a-young-mans-ego-doomed-a-much-hyped-jurassic-park-game-1830452541

Requested move 06 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by RHaworth —innotata 17:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Jurassic Park: Trespasser → Trespasser (computer game) – The former title is an erroneous one. Encyclopaedic content should be CORRECT and this encyclopaedic title is INCORRECT. This game is called "TRESPASSER" with no confounding elements. David-King (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legacy

Might want to re-add part, where Half-life 2's physic gun was mentioned to be inspired by Trespasser's arm.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2007/05/21/half-life-2-orange-box-x360-valve-pres-gabe-newell-interview Around between 3:52 - 5:08 Gabe Newell talks shortly about Trespasser, and how Valve was going to do (gravity gun) in HL2 what Trespasser did (arm), but less messed up and less complex. 85.76.22.238 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

85.76.22.238 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Computerandvideogames.com review is different from the one in the printed C&VG issue. What's its original source?

I noticed that the reviews infobox listed C&VG's score as 1 out of 10. That didn't look right to me, since at the time the game came out, C&VG's scoring system was out of 5, not out of 10. So I checked the cited reference, an online version dated August 2001:

• Kim Randell (2001-08-15). "PC Review: Trespasser". Computer and Video Games. Future plc. Archived from the original on 2007-06-24. Retrieved 2014-04-12.

That page's text looked very unfamiliar to me, compared to what I remembered of the printed review: that web page shows 600 words of continuous prose, but C&VG's reviews were formatted as a page full of boxouts, with about half that word count. So I dug out my old issue of the magazine and sure enough, the printed version (though covering similar criticisms) was by an entirely different reviewer:

• Huhtala, Alex (February 1999). "Trespasser". Computer and Video Games. No. 207. London: EMAP. p. 45. {{cite magazine}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

I added that print version to the article, in addition to the existing quotes from the web version.

It's not surprising that a review hosted on computerandvideogames.com is different from the one originally printed in C&VG. Over the years, C&VG switched from being published by EMAP to Dennis to Future, so that at one point, Future's computerandvideogames.com website was able to republish reviews from a number of different magazines.

So the question is: if the Kim Randell review of Trespasser wasn't originally published in the printed version of C&VG, where was it from? Some of the comments towards the end seem to suggest it was a PC magazine rather than a multiformat one. Does anyone know the actual source?

(I've also made this comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, as it might affect other game articles that cite computerandvideogames.com.) --Nick R^Talk 17:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)