Announcement

Collapse

The Infinity Blade Forums Have Moved

We've launched brand new Infinity Blade forums with improved features and revamped layout. We've also included a complete archive of the previous posts. Come check out the new Infinity Blade forums.
See more
See less

Stinger alt fire...Wikipedia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stinger alt fire...Wikipedia

    I was reading the Wikipedia article on UT3...found this:
    Returning from Unreal and Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict is the Tarydium Stinger, which replaces the Minigun. The Stinger's primary fires hitscan-speed rounds; the secondary fire mode has a slower rate of fire, but has the ability to follow a target as well as nail the opponent to a wall.
    Its interesting and i wonder how effective it is if true...

  • #2
    Not been said anywhere else, doubt it's legitimacy.

    Comment


    • #3
      yeah but i doubt they would have something on there which is false info or just made up stuff...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Madmanxan View Post
        yeah but i doubt they would have something on there which is false info or just made up stuff...
        Wikipedia contains stuff that's made up and false, anyone can edit stuff but it's usually corrected soon after.

        Don't threat Wikipedia as an infallible source of information, always check multiple sources.

        Comment


        • #5
          The Stinger alt fire in UC2 followed people when you were locked on. The UT3 Stinger does not lock or follow.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by -=¤willhaven¤=- View Post
            The Stinger alt fire in UC2 followed people when you were locked on. The UT3 Stinger does not lock or follow.
            Thanks for clearing it up, I guess someone thought it was a straight "port" of the UC2 stinger.

            Comment


            • #7
              Don't threat Wikipedia as an infallible source of information, always check multiple sources.
              Right on. If you're ever doing papers for high school or college, never directly quote something from Wikipedia. The amount of sheer nonsense and fakery on that site is amazing. With its open-ended structure, any person can come on there and be an arbiter of truth for millions of viewers. Take it as a resource to expand your search for knowledge, but not the end of quest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gamehostingreviews View Post
                Right on. If you're ever doing papers for high school or college, never directly quote something from Wikipedia. The amount of sheer nonsense and fakery on that site is amazing. With its open-ended structure, any person can come on there and be an arbiter of truth for millions of viewers. Take it as a resource to expand your search for knowledge, but not the end of quest.
                Actually, the quality of some articles is a lot more verifiable now that they're adding sources to pretty much every sentence in an article. At least it's easier to check all the claims in an article. You could of course burn the Wikipedia project to the ground simply because anyone can contribute but it's not the disaster you're claiming it is.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not saying it is a disaster. Its just that I've seen people in the computer lab at my college with an hour to go before a paper is due and there they are, on Wikipedia. Even if the articles have proper footnotes, its massive store of data has made people lazy researchers IMO. That's not Wikipedia's fault per se, but it is something to think about. If it wasn't clear in my earlier post, you are correct.

                  They have made marked improvements and the new IP filters to see which three-letter government agency is editing articles is a welcome change. Its just that in the information were seeing a lot of bad research based upon people not wanting to do all the legwork, that's all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah I agree; not everyone is critical enough when it comes to checking the reliability of their sources (or they simply take the information from the first source they find, usually Wikipedia because that's the first hit on Google).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Anyone with a wikipedia account willing to fix it btw?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Good research takes time and a lot of reading. Whole books may discuss something like the Palestine/Israel conflict and not touch a half of the total history of the events that have transpired. Information is greatly condensed on Wikipedia, which doesn't always make for the most rounded opinion on any given topic. To do top-notch research, people need read books, even in this anti-book age. Though for things like a Stinger, I guess all you need is an executive review.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X