Austin Powers Golf Cart appears to be about a specific action that can occur during multiplayer shooters, but is this really worth a concept? And even if it is a worthy concept, its name is too obtuse to be acceptable. This concept should either be deleted or renamed.
I approved it in the queue but it was definitely borderline. The original name was just "Austin Powers" but clearly people wouldn't think of a car getting stuck if that was the only name, so I changed it slightly before hitting Approve.
i'm not saying its validity (or the name) shouldn't be debated though.
" @Hailinel: If you've seen the movie, you would know. Again, I'm not really defending it, but it is a thing that happens. "
Yes, I've seen the scene as linked by Not_Rage, and it still seems absurd that the concept is named as such because it's not a reference that everyone would immediately get, and as others have noted, that's not a golf cart.
@Hailinel: Yeah, I realize it's not a golf cart now. I hadn't seen the movie in 10 years. But it was better than just leaving it as "Austin Powers" alone. And I did immediately realize what he was talking about, which is why I approved it. Of course I expected it to come up for debate.
" @Hailinel: Yeah, I realize it's not a golf cart now. I hadn't seen the movie in 10 years. But it was better than just leaving it as "Austin Powers" alone. And I did immediately realize what he was talking about, which is why I approved it. Of course I expected it to come up for debate. "
You approved it because you yourself got the reference even though you had no idea how widespread knowledge of the reference was and that you knew it would come up for debate? That's shaky reasoning for approving the concept. I've seen Austin Powers before, a long time ago, and I completely forgot about that bit of the movie before that Youtube clip was posted. I'm sure that I'm not the only person that would react the same way. Is there honestly no better name that you could think of that did not depend on the Austin Powers reference?
I'm just gonna throw this out there, but I distinctly remembering hearing "Oh jeez, I Austin Powers-ed it" on a recent Quick Look when this exact thing happened.
>_> Now if only I could remember which one it was.
I'm going to agree the name is pretty bad in terms of describing what it is.
I think the reason it got submitted was cause someone in a quick look said something along the lines of 'Austin Powering' while this was happening. Also, does there really need to be a concept for this?
@Hailinel: Please forgive me. In the future I will exclude you all from process and make decisions on borderline pages regardless of what anyone else thinks. /sarcasm
Seriously, as I said before, I thought it was borderline, so I gave it the okay knowing full well that it would most likely end up here. Essentially I was sending it to the D&C forum for review by you guys. How is that bad? So the guy got like 3 points for something that may get deleted. OH NO! And as for the name, again, yeah I fucked up by calling it a golf cart. So let's rename it.
@Marino: You're basically saying that as submitted, the concept wasn't good enough, so you changed the title without decreasing the level of ambiguity and then posted it anyway. You honestly couldn't think of anything better, like Environmental Vehicular Entrapment?
I don't believe it to be a concept, it's just something that happens do to poor level design. I'd say it should be deleted, it's only worthy of a foot note anyway.
" @Marino: You're basically saying that as submitted, the concept wasn't good enough, so you changed the title without decreasing the level of ambiguity and then posted it anyway. You honestly couldn't think of anything better, like Environmental Vehicular Entrapment? "
I'm saying the name wasn't good enough and I didn't take the time to think of a significantly better name. Could I have taken more time on it? Sure. Should I have? Maybe. I honestly believe that no matter what I decided to name it, it was going to end up here in the D&C forum because, as I've said numerous times, I believed the concept to be borderline. I don't know how many times I can explain my thought process on this issue. What do you want from me? To promise I'll do better in the future?
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @Marino: This is why I think all concept should have to go through the discussion board before being excepted. "
While sending ALL of them is probably overkill, I agree with you in principle. Even before I was a mod I would often monitor the "newest additions" tab on each of the categories looking for debatable submissions. I'm sure you can see that from my previous posts in this forum. So while having every new concept be discussed here probably isn't feasible, I think there's enough of us monitoring it to catch the extraneous stuff.
@TMThomsen: AI can be applied to every game, but it's still a concept. Not saying this concept isn't stupid, or doesn't need work, but commonality hasn't ever been a metric before.
My problem with it is that it only happens due to a bug in a game, or due to input from the player; therefore not really a game concept. We don't have a "This game crashes often" concept page either.
@Marino: I'm not saying you and the other moderators don't know how to use common sense or anything of that nature because you guys very often do an excellent job. However, as a moderator, isn't it your job to prevent things from reaching the point that the issue will obviously need to be brought up in the D&C forum after it goes live? The site already has enough concepts with vague, ludicrous names as it is, not all of which a moderator had the chance to peruse because the submitter had over 5,000 wikipoints. There are enough items that need debate without the moderators knowingly adding more to the pile.
Hailinel does make a good point....maybe you should have brought that submission to the attention of this board before making changes to it and accepting it.
@Unknown_Pleasures: I'm not the only one working the queue. So someone else would've either approved it, or it would've been deleted while we discussed it. There's a mod quest for getting to 1000 wiki approvals/denials, so it wouldn't have lingered there either way.
@Unknown_Pleasures: A few, yeah. Don't tell nobody! =)
Seriously though, much like some of the quests encourage people to use the site as it was intended. The mod ones encourage us to do what we're supposed to do.
So is it just going to be left as is, or is the name going to be changed, or will the concept be deleted? This conversation has gotten a bit off-topic.
As this has happened to me on occasion, I don't see any reason to not have it here. However, it's suggested that this phenomenon is exclusive to multiplayer, which it is not. It can happen in pretty much any game with vehicular gameplay, and when it's happened to me it's mostly in games like GTA.
As for the name, it's referencing pop culture, in this case a fairly popular movie. I think the reference is fine, though the name is not.
I feel like the concept's name should be changed, as it's not really something it's referenced to commonly. In fact, this is probably covered by the "Getting Stuck in Geometry" concept, from what it looks like. It's really not all that different.
Log in to comment