Talk:F.A.T.A.L.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Role-playing games Portal

Contents 1 Note from first author 2 Removed link to RPGnet review 3 Re: Zerfetzen's edit 4 Re: Aeonite's Previous edit 5 Edit from an assitant writter

[edit] Note from first author

I know there was a prior article on this game, and I know it was deleted. I hope that since the game is no longer available and the furor surrounding it has died down, a neutral article on it can continue to exist. Thanks to its controversial nature, F.A.T.A.L. is more noteworthy than many homebrew games and the controversy that surrounded it is documentable in a mature, neutral fashion. If you disagree, I will not oppose a deletion. --Agamemnon2 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to RPGnet review

The article was written by someone connected with the game and has widely been discounted as a viable review. If someone puts it back up, I'd reccomend mentioning that it was written by someone affiliated.

• Duly noted. I just wanted to include another review besides the infamous one at primaryerror.net. Reputable reviewers didn't touch the game with a ten-foot pole, though, so it's hard to get non-inflammatory or non-fabricated reviews. --Agamemnon2 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Zerfetzen's edit

I have no vested interest in this article other than a somewhat bemused scholarly one. However it seems that Zerfetzen's edits tend towards the "whitewash" end of the spectrum rather than seeking to be fair and balanced as he implies. Reviewing all of his changes is moot as anyone can view history. However, several notable changes merit discussion.

First, he changes the date of publication to a much earlier and vague "date when development began" for some unknown reason.

Secondly, he eliminates the mention of the book's original title, Fantasy Adventure To Adult Lechery. I have a digital copy of the original and I know this was the title so pretending it wasn't doesn't change anything. His deletion of all mention of a "second edition" is no doubt part of he same mission to purge all mention that the game originally had a different title.

Third, and most obviously, he eliminates all mention of the well-known Sartin/MacLennan review, including (most egregiously) the link to said article. While certainly not favorable towards F.A.T.A.L., the lengthy review does play a major role in the history of this controversial game.

In fact, Zerfetzen's edits to remove all notion of controversy from this article would, in my opinion, push this article towards the realm of "Recommend Deletion: Non-Notable". It is controversy that makes F.A.T.A.L. worthy of an article, and whitewashing it removes its importance.

I will make no further edits because I don't intend to waste my time with a silly reversion war. However I do hope this sorts itself out, either through restoration of the content that makes the article worthwhile, or through its deletion. aeonite 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Aeonite's Previous edit

While Aeonite cites a scholarly interest, his preference seems for sensationalism rather than the objectivity he touts. I also watched the game develop, and think enough flames were fanned. Rather than linking to an article filled with a thousand occurrences of the f-word, I focused more on the game. Although I also remember the previous title, I remember them saying on their website that multiple editions never existed, but the game was merely made public on the net during its development. As much as the game changed over time, do we want to try to cover all of it here? I didn't think so. So I went for more brief and to the point. Sensationalism isn't what makes something worthwhile.

Your points are worthwhile, and I think that the current content of the page is acceptable, even without the link to the review in question. I do, however, still question the overall notability of this game if the article omits said link, since it is certainly the case that most people know about this game because of that review (F-words or not). Without said review, this would no doubt be just another among hundreds or thousands of independently-produced RPGs that no one ever heard of. aeonite 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I must say I was surprised that there is still enough interest in this abortion of a game to result in an edit war. I understand the first F.A.T.A.L article was deleted for being vandalized countless times, I didn't expect the topic to still be in any way controversial.

I'm pretty sure this one will also end in deletion as soon as the AFD Inquisition gets a whiff. --Agamemnon2 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored non-whitewash version. Now making grammar fixes. Any article on this without even a link to the Sartin/McLennan review and that fails to mention why the massive hate-on for it is ridiculously lacking - David Gerard 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit from an assitant writter

I helped write fatal while it was alive but don't be alarmed, I am somewhat level headed (I found the sexual content very juvenile, unnecessary, and disgusting and did not use those rules). I have added a small section at the end of the article to help explain its disappearance. And yes, I was the assistant author who jokingly told Hall that fatal was his midlife crisis. If you have any other questions about the game that someone a bit more on the “inside” like me might know, feel free to ask. Also if anyone would like a free .pdf of the last release of the game you may IM me via AIM. My screen name is cp900562. Xian4250 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's good to know the dates and approximate reasons behind Hall's disappearance. --Agamemnon2 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about this - did Hall abandon the project because of that one comment? That seems strange, given the amount of abuse handed out to FATAL on the internet. Could you elaborate a little more? Also, is the game finished for good, or merely out of the public eye for the time being? Mentalepsy 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure why Hall abandoned the project. All I know is that after I sent him that email he never replied back to me, and he seemed to disappear completely. I like to see humor in things, so I assumed it was due to my comment. But to be more realistic, it was probably due to something else in his life. His disappearance more likely just happened to correspond to when I sent him that email. One possiblity is that Hall got frustrated and gave up with FATAL because he had been working on it for over 6 years and there was still no end in sight. Fatal was never finished and I have been out of touch with Hall for about a year now. So I wouldn’t know if Hall is still working on it secretly. For all I know Hall could have been hit by a car and died. For some reason he just… went away. I have even tried calling his home phone number, but no one picks up. I even left a message but my call was not returned. I actually just called him again as I was writing this, just to make sure; this time there wasn’t even an answering machine, it just kept ringing and no picked up. I have never met Hall in person. We only knew each other through email exchanges, forum posts, and phone calls. Overall Byron Hall disappeared for no apparent reason, and due to Hall’s disappearance, F.A.T.A.L. (as far as I know) has died.Xian4250 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)