Talk:Platform game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Platform game was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was a past project collaboration.

Original research[edit]

Where is the term "hop and bop" defined? This article does not cite any references regarding "hop and bop". Personally, I have never heard about that before. A bit of googling brought me to this http://joshwillard.com/platformgames/?page_id=19 - which mentions Boutros 2006. I do not know what he means by Boutros 2006, but I believe he might be talking about this: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130268/a_detailed_crossexamination_of_.php?page=1 However, not a single page in that examination mentioned "hop and bop". I can find some forum posts mentioning hop and bop (and for example this http://dailytrojan.com/2011/08/23/2d-platformers-begin-to-make-astonishing-comeback/ but it is possible that the writer of that article has used Wikipedia as his source), but it doesn't seem to be a very common term.

Does anyone have any information on the origins of this term? Should it even be used in this article? It's been two years since that section has had "original research" tag. Maybe it's time to remove parts of the section? 88.115.93.18 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I could dig up references to it. It's an American term and was a pretty common term in the '90s when most of these games were made, but I don't hear it much anymore. I've also heard "jump and run," but I think that's more European. Frogacuda (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Console Bias[edit]

The whole article is heavy biased toward consoles, with no mention of home computers such as ZX Spectrum, Amstard CPC or Commodore 64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.65.34 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions, many, many significant games that originated on computers, like Jet Set Willy, Impossible Mission, Prince of Persia, Shadow of the Beast, Snokie, Commander Keen, Alpha Waves, etc. I really went out of my way to include important games from arcades, computers, handhelds, and consoles, as well as international games. What do you feel is missing as far as games that contributed something significant to the genre? Specific mentions of systems isn't really enough. Most of the time the articles simply says "computers" because these games were often multiplatform. Frogacuda (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros.[edit]

The caption on the second image states Super Mario Bros. is the best selling video game of all time. This seems likely to become potentially outdated, if not already. Perhaps 'as of (date)' should be added to prevent this? - AlKing464 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::It's not likely to become obsolete any time soon. According to the 1999 Guiness Book of World Records it had sold more than 40 million copies on NES alone. That's more than GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, and Halo 2 combined, and well over double the nearest runner up. I don't see it changing any time soon. Frogacuda 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, look it's changed. Wii Sports has sold 40% more copies than the famed platformer (and don't say it's a bundle game because so was Mario). Fortunately someone's already changed the caption, but I'm sure in a few years Super Mario Bros will drop down again. 86.135.87.228 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Records are made to me broken, as can confirm Sir Alec Guinness, Baron Pierre de Coubertin and Usain Bolt. Also, major game sales figures reported by the companies are about as reliably objective as up-to-date military field reports transmitted to the general public in wartime. So, write accordingly. :-) Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Megaman[edit]

i don't feel as though the section on run and gun platform games works very well, for instance why is megaman not in it? i think it would be a far stretch to say that megaman games aren't linear and as far as the platform jumping criteria goes, the whole of the second stage of contra is nothing but platform jumping! i can understand where earthworm jim and vectorman are concerned, as the gameplay is not as linear in those games.

The short answer is because you wouldn't call Megaman a shooter. A run and gun is both a platformer and a shooter, and if it's one and not the other, then it isn't a run and gun. Frogacuda 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How is Megaman not a shooter? and how can the article say there's backtracking in Megaman? the game is a straight run forwards shooting things game.How does multi-directional shooting make platformers more like shoot-em-ups? most shoot-em up have single directional shooting ie R-type and gradius.Also Contra has, as has already been said levels with a high emphasis on jumping (whole of the second level of the first game, much of the 3rd stage of alien wars. the section on run-and-gun games is nonsence and needs a more solid criteria section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus.arnold (talkcontribs) 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The jumping parts of Contra are hard to miss. The platforms are huge. It's simplified in a sense. In any event, I wouldn't call Megaman a run and gun, nor have I seen it classified as such, but you do raise a good point that it might not be the best counterexample to use. I'll change it. Frogacuda 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is late, but in Mega Man you can backtrack through whole levels and pick any order of levels to play. I can't recall but I think you can even replay previous levels. So I don't get where you are saying that it's totally linear with no backtracking. 70.112.210.203 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Rifter0x0000 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • arguably
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), traveled (A) (British: travelled), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like: wasn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, wouldn't, didn't, isn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, wasn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Needs a lot more references before it's GA worthy M3tal H3ad 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Removed Chronology of significant platform games[edit]

This list has always been a bit of a sticking point. Now that the article is much more complete, the list is probably unneccessary, so I've removed it.

Copyedit(s)[edit]

Should probably have mentioned this earlier, but my main intent here is to tighten the prose as an FA candidate. Mostly, I'm going to be trying to remove unnecessary words, rephrase where I think a sentence might be unclear, and replace elements I think might be too casual in tone ("whiz through the levels," for instance). This process does sometimes make things sound choppier, so go ahead and continue passing over my own pass. ^_^ Shimeru 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes some subtleties get lost in editing. For things that I felt didn't quite work I've been trying to look at why you changed them and find something that addresses that as well as preserves what I was trying to communicate, rather than doing a straight revert. I appreciate another voice on the copy editing front. Hopefully it'll pass, but we haven't been getting alot of voices on the review :/ Frogacuda 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's quite ready yet. The prose still needs some work, which's why I've been trying to copyedit it. (Unfortunately, I have very little free time just now with which to do so, so I'm going at it a section at a time.) It could probably use a couple more citations too. I've elected not to support or oppose it until I've had a shot at improving it. There's a chance it could slip through the cracks, so to speak; the best thing for it would be to continue improving it and renominate it in a month or two, making sure any previous objections have been fully addressed. Shimeru 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Long tail[edit]

In what must count as a classic example of the long tail with respect to computer games...

This reference is poorly written and, I think, factually wrong. I would change it but what with the award and all,...jcp 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article[edit]

Just Finished reading it now, and it really is quite a good read. Hope it gets promoted to featured article status soon. The only problem I have is that it doesn't really mention the enormous influence that Banjo Kazooie has had on the genre in recent years; everything from Jak and Daxter, to Ratchet and Clank, and even Nintendo's own Mario Sunshine.--124.176.7.158 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Banjo as quite derivitive, really. Could you elaborate?67.85.176.130 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Banjo-Kazooie has been very influential to the genre for a number of reasons. In terms of style and graphics, Banjo-Kazooie has been a huge innovator: the rich characters, the dynamic music, the award winning graphics and art direction that were amazing for both the time and console. More importantly, the buddy system Banjo-Kazooie introduced has been extremely influential, like I said just look at Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, and even Mario Sunshine, they all make extensive use of it. Sure Banjo built on some of the ground work laid out by Mario 64, but the style, the buddy system, and many more features it introduced have been widely imitated.--58.168.249.12 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The art direction is nothing short of atrocious, like everything Rare made since they starting using 3D models. This point is highly subjective, of course, but for that reason, I don't think it would be wise to include on the merits of artistic influence unless there are actual game creators that have acknowledged it as an influence.
Similarly, buddy systems have been around for decades in the genre, and I don't think anything in particular about it could be pinned on Banjo-Kazooie in particular. The Mario Sunshine analogy is an even greater stretch. I'm not even sure what you're referring to other than Mario having something on his back
Food for thought for those in denial on the plainly obvious Mario Sunshine analogy:
  • Mario has a secondary character which rides around on his back. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character converses and plays an active part in the story. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character improves Mario's jumping ability. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character can improve Mario's speed. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character allows Mario to shoot projectiles. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character allows Mario to reach previously inaccessible areas. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character needs some abilities to be upgraded/found before they can be utilised. Just like Banjo Kazooie.
  • The secondary character ... well, you should get the picture by now. 58.169.20.250 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Caling the FLUDD a character is a bit of a stretch. It's a utility with a computer in it. Isn't this pretty much the same as upgrading the suit in Antiriad or Metroid, or whatever? It wans't an original element to begin with. I can find you hundreds of sources that credit Super Mario as the first scrolling platform game, but does that mean it actually came out before Pac Land and Jump Bug, or does it just mean the author hasn't played that many games and is seeing simplistic relationships as cause and effect when they aren't?
How is it a stretch? Just because a character isn't human doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as a character. By your logic I guess Clank from Ratchet and Clank isn't a character either! Oh yeah, if you can find me a metroid game where Samus' suit can talk and play an active part in the storyline, then I might take your comparison seriously! And another thing, it was CERTAINLY an original element in the 3D platform genre; banjo-kazooie was first to utilize a secondary character in this way. The FLUDD-mario/Banjo-Kazooie comparisons are pretty damn obvious, I'd hardly call it a simplistic relationship. You seem quite sure that the whole BJ buddy system is entirely derivative, so please provide evidence where the buddy system has be employed previously prior to BJ in this way (I haven't seen it, but I'm happy to be surprised). Even if it was though, something to point out is that relveance isn't entirely related to simply the old adage of 'who did it first' (which you seem to be fixated on). A game which popularizes such a style by reworking the original idea brilliantly is influential and relevant in its own right. 124.176.43.144 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Being the first 3D platformer to use a popular convention of 2D games is not significant. Neither is the fact that FLUDD or Kazooie can talk. Does it matter what the first 3D platformer to use a double jump is, for example? And would all later 3D platformers be indebted to that one, or is it just a logical extension of double jumps from 2D platformers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.180.157 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There you are at it again! Talking up the derivative nature of the BJ buddy system (a secondary character paired on the back or in association with the primary character), yet still providing NO direct evidence, show some please! And even so, it does not take away the FACT that BJ popularized the use of this style, and that in itself is influential and relevant. 124.176.43.144 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
To popularize something, mustn't it indeed be popular? One or two other games is not significant. Also, why does it matter if the character is on his back or not? Why is that a relevant thing to latch onto that you think it really changed these games in some way? Who cares? I named other games with secondary helper characters. Who cares if they're not in a back pack? Why does that matter? Do I need to go into all the games that use magic shoes and hats now, too?
Please cite these games you speak of, and additionally, where the creators of BJ acknowledged that these were an inspiration. And by the way, it must matter if after Banjo Kazooie, other games started pairing a character directly with another! Debating whether or not it matters is irrespective of the point anyway. What matters is that BJ did it, others duplicated it after this point, and you haven't provided a shred of evidence to suggest that it was done previously. Also, BJ had two CHARACTERS directly paired together, NOT a character in possession of magic shoes or hats; trying to draw vague connections between them is pointless. 124.176.4.223 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's go with Earthworm Jim 2, and his sidekick Snott that he carried in his backpack and used to do certain moves. I don't know for a fact that it was a direct inspiration to BK, but since I'm not writing the BK wiki entry, I don't care. And in fact, I wouldn't care to mention that EWJ2 did this either, because it's an altogether unimportant point that has nothing to do with the development of the genre even if it hadn't been done before.
Now I expect you'll tell me that doesn't count because there isn't a hyphen in the title and Earthworm Jim doesn't have a yellow hat, but you're really not describing an evolution in the genre you're just trying to pick out one tiny thing that an extremely derivative, unoriginal Mario 64 clone did differently.67.85.180.157 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said earlier I'm happy to be surprised, I never pretended to know everything about the platforming genre. However I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum on this issue anymore, as your circular logic is giving me headache. I'll instead direct you to the comments of Rob Haywood below. Also, You seem to be forgetting that the buddy-system is only ONE of the features that BJ did remarkably well (judging from the reviews, which maybe you should familiarize yourself with). 124.176.4.223 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
While I admit I'm not a fan of B-K, remember that there are dozens of very good Platform games, including many personal favorites of mine, that are not mentioned, but the article is already VERY long, and I'm trying to keep it to games that are significant in terms of the development of the genre and and the time they were released. It might be worthy of a passing mention along with other platformers that sold well, but I wouldn't spend time going into the details of its gameplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.180.157 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has their own opinion, and while I do not agree with yours in relation to Banjo-Kazooie, I respect it. I tip my hat to you sir, this has been an interesting discussion. 124.187.204.91 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember, drawing vague connections between games is not the same thing as establishing a case for influence or historic connection. I even acknowledged at certain points in the article that certain games that did things first were probably not a direct influence on their successors (Alpha Waves and Jump Bug for example).

Got some evidence for any of those points fella? The only thing vague here is you. I seriously wonder if you've even played this game or read a single review/critique on it, as your opinions are way out of line with the general consensus.

I've played over 10,000 games on over 50 systems, including both Banjo N64 releases. If you want to write a review of Banjo, I reccomend GameFAQs.com. If you'd like to write an encyclopedia entry, you need to do your research, like I have. I've cited my sources in this wiki entry, and the claims are rock solid. IF you want to add to it, you need to be specific. There's nothing vague in this entry.

The mario sunshine analogy is not really that weak in my opinion, Mario carries around a secondary talking character on his back which gives him new abilities as well as adding to the story, also how have buddy systems been "around for decades" in the 3d platform game genre in 1998?

Precisely, I was talking about the 3D platform genre after all. Banjo-kazooie's take on the buddy system in the 3D platormer was not only critically acclaimed, it also sparked a wave imitators that continue to this day. If thats not what you'd call influential then I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.23.171 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3D Platformers built on and borrowed from the 2D games on which they're based. And again, if you can find creators of later games crediting Banjo as an inspiration, then it IS relevant as influencial. However, if you can't find that, and the game in question didn't actually originate anything, I don't think the case is particularly strong. Banjo didn't do anything new, and no one has said they looked to it for inspiration, so it's kind of just baseless speculation. You could just as easily say Jak and Daxter is owed "Toejam and Earl" or something (and that would be wrong, too).Frogacuda 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I find your circular logic very confusing; your whole statement is one big contradiction. You seem quite happy to argue that Banjo-Kazooie is extremely derivative, even though the producers themselves have not acknowledged (to my knowledge) any of these previous forerunners you purport; something which you concede in your own words is needed to establish influence. And yet, you come in here all high-and-mighty and shut down any comparisons made to Banjo-Kazooie and the fairly obvious clones that came after it. And furthermore, relevence shouldn't just be centered around doing something new, it can also be about using a previous idea and reworking it brilliantly, which is something Banjo-Kazooie did in spades as well as being an innovator of the 3D platforming genre. And unlike you, I have a multitude of sources to back up my claims (not simply baseless rhetoric), just check out gamerankings.com for the scores of glowing reviews. Rob Haywood 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually he's quite clear on one important point that I often find easy to forget. What may be "obvious" to you is still considered Original Research unless you can cite sources. Frogacuda is simply asking for you to add some of these "multitude of sources" to the article. As long as you can cite other reliable resources for what you post on Wikipedia, go ahead and post it. If you can't find the resources to back you up, you're posting your own research, and that's highly undesired at Wikipedia. That's pretty much what it boils down to: Either post resources for your claims, or keep your thoughts to yourself. Dawynn (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinon Super Mario 64 introduced the free roaming style but other games such as Banjo kazooie Spyro the dragon Donkey kong 64 Sonic adventure Conkers bad fur days Jak and Daxter Ratchet and Clank and Crash twinsanity follow in it's foot steps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.197.103 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario 64 can be hop and bop.[edit]

You can jump on goombas to kill them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sega31098 (talkcontribs) 04:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

There Only Being Two N64 2D Platform Games[edit]

"The Nintendo 64 had the fewest 2D platformers — only Yoshi's Story and Mischief Makers — and both met with a tepid response from critics at the time."

Would not the game "Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Subzero" be counted? KxWaal 02:53, 01 October 2007 (UTC)

That's generally considered to be a beat 'em up (or fighting game if you're in Europe. 68.45.100.233 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

About Kirby and the crystal shards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.197.103 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs source[edit]

Others found its relaxed pace soothing, but it remains one of the less popular games in the series. It featured difficult platform areas that were similar to the Bowser levels from Super Mario 64 with a focus on traditional platform jumping.

It seriously needs source. Although Super Mario Sunshine is not as popular as Super Mario 64, it's neither either as bad as Superman 64 nor "the less popular games of the series". there are Mario games 2 million times worse (look at Mario Teaches typing); or would you like to have SMS included in the list of the worst games ever?? 200.71.188.210 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the mario "series" only includes the main platform games. The mario "franchise" and "universe." are much larger than that, but usually a series only includes games which could in some way be called sequels to the original.
Perhaps saying it's one of the "less popular platformers in the series" would be less ambiguous.Frogacuda 06:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Guess what? The above cited text is still uncorrected and with no references either, so if we don't find a source supporting it, I will have to delete it.--Twicemost (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

because no one answered, and in order to keep this article as GA, I am deleting that unverified --and uncorrected-- text. --Twicemost (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hacker, Vandal, or Virus?[edit]

As I was reading the article, this caption caught my eye.

[[Super Nintendo he the game maker is pimp aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<mat4568765Italic text[22]</math>

Does anyone know what that was all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.187.23 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the FBI and it looks like it was one of those damn virus hackers. -- 77.182.241.74 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Q*Bert[edit]

Q*Bert -- Comical Action game? Isometric Platformer? How would you classify this classic arcade game? Dawynn (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Q*Bert is of a period in gaming before clear genre definitions existed, and this is an issue that comes up a lot during these kinds of articles. The definition of "platform game" has evolved somewhat over the years. It seems to have been used first in the UK game magazines, referring to games like Donkey Kong, Space Panic, and Lode Runner. However, by the time the term came to be widely used internationally and adopted by game creators, the meaning had morphed somewhat.
This article is written from a contemporary perspective, and thus concerns the genre as it is commonly defined today. Under most widely accepted definitions, including the one in this article, it is not a platform game at all. You move about on a grid, and you cannot control or aim your jumps. Thus, not a platformer. I would simply classify it under the broad umbrella of "Arcade".Frogacuda (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick google test. It's a platform game. Even though it's a single screen game on an isometric perspective. Randomran (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that would be why I posted on the Platform discussion page. And, as noted, both the "Comical Action" games and "Isometric" platformers are subgenres of platform. As noted on this page, "Comical Action" is not generally even thought of in this country. As noted -- this is a cateogry only spoken of in Japan and eastern countries. Personally, I was leaning against the isometric platform because that seemed more like something where the screen actualy panned. The "Comical Action" games do everything on non-panning screens, like Q*Bert -- I just hadn't seen any clarification as to whether Q*Bert would qualify. And websites that don't even consider "Comical Action" as a potential genre would not be good indications either for or against whether this particular game qualifies for this subgenre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talkcontribs) 01:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, it's a platformesque at best. Maybe there should be a little more acknowledgment of gray areas in classification, but I think that it would be counterproductive and confusing to discuss in the context of the genre as defined in this article.
Ok, I added a section on the ambiguities of early platform games Platform_game#Dispute_about_classification_of_early_platformers Frogacuda (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SonicTheHedgehog1.png[edit]

The image Image:SonicTheHedgehog1.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Open-world platformers as a subgenre?[edit]

It seems as though there's a missing subgenre of platformers where exploration of a large environment is the main focus, and the abilities gained by the character are primarily used for exploration. Metroid and the various Metroidvanias would probably fall under this category, as would Shadow Complex and (arguably) Cave Story and the more recent Mega Man games such as ZX. Should there be an additional subgenre clasification for these? - 203.117.64.67 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There already is a classification for those - Metroidvania (or Castleroid if you're one of THOSE people)08:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.141.9 (talk)

Platformers into the present[edit]

In this section, there is no mention to New Super Mario Bros. Wii, with over 10 million copies sold to date, and being a true platformer in a 7th gen console. --neolandes (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What about wheeled platformers?[edit]

I believe there should be a mention of games like Elastomania and X-Moto and all the many clones and variations on the theme that are out there. --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How does this line add anything to the text?[edit]

"Europe, North America, and Japan have played major parts in the genre's evolution"

Well, seeing as 99% of the games until recently were developed in those three regions that's hardly surprising and true for every genre per default. Of course there are exceptions like FPS. Maybe it actually wants to tell us that no single region had more influence than others? I'd probably agree with that but wouldn't it be more useful to say something like "Platform games have been popular all around the globe"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janbt (talkcontribs) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lode Runner[edit]

"Others, like Space Panic and Lode Runner, are excluded because they lack the jump mechanic that is central to nearly all modern definitions of the genre"

Why then does our own Lode Runner page state that it is a platform game? --Janbt (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Because there's disagreement on the subject. The overwhelming majority of definitions include jumping as the core mechanic, so that's the one this article should use, but obviously there are people who consider Lode Runner a platform game, particularly at the time it was released. This dispute is acknowledged in the article.Frogacuda (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

super metroid[edit]

why wasn't super metroid mentioned at all? i inserted a brief mention [ that maybe disrupted the (excellent!) prose that was there.. ] --187.40.231.105 (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that games were prioritized more by innovation, impact, and commercial success than by quality, and Super Metroid sold modestly and didn't innovate anything significant, despite being a truly excellent game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.184.181 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jump and Run[edit]

Jump and run redirects to this, but it is not mentioned in the article at all. Is it a synonym or some sub-genre? --Enmoku (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a synonym for the "Hop and Bop" genre (for action games like Sonic and Mario), or "Cinematic Platformer" for the non-action exploration games such as Knytt Stories. --118.90.102.124 (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jump and Run or Jump 'n' Run is a term commonly used in Germany for platformers. In fact, that's the genres name over here. Opinions are split though whether it refers to all platformers or just the Hop and Bop subgenre.--Janbt (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Passwords in Alex Kidd[edit]

There was no password system in "Alex Kidd in Miracle World". Please stop spreading lies. The source given in the article clearly refers to "High Tech World", and if that exceeds your mental capacity, you should probably not edit articles about topics you obviously have no clue about. 85.177.2.226 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write this originally, but I'll delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theminpoes (talkcontribs) 09:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cluttered images[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if there's too many images around the single screen and scrolling movement sections. Perhaps we can cut down on the pictures around that area? --Newimagekirby (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Turn-based platformer[edit]

Here is an example of a turn-based platformer that may not qualify as an Action game. SharkD  Talk  02:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Endless running games[edit]

This section is for discussing the eponymous section in the Platform game article, especially my own recent edits which may require discussion and/or better sources. Some of them are admittedly bold edits, but – I hope – not so bold as to necessitate immediate revert before talking about it. My starting argument: wikification by more experienced users should lead to significant improvement of the original article. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you need more sources discussing the issue. It's original research right now. If you are saying that Pepsiman is an influence on the Endless Running genre, you need to find sources supporting that, not merely gameplay footage, or a review of the game that predates any of the later games. As I'm sure you know by now, it's not about what's true, it's about what's verifiable. The IGN article describes Pepsiman as being similar to Crash Bandicoot, so couldn't that be a more plausible predecessor? Certainly more people have played it than Pepsiman. I'm not saying that it should be used instead, I'm saying that without sources clearly saying one way or the other, it doesn't really belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you haven't read carefully enough what I had carefully phrased. Nowhere do I claim that Pepsiman was an inspiration to today's "endless running" games. In fact, I'm pretty sure no serious source exists to suggest this, as it is probably not true anyway (see my talk page). At best, several people who have played both Pepsiman and Subway Surfers have spontaneously commented online that the latter is almost a clone.[1] But even then, for lack of proper references, I have removed my initial text about this and the (weasel?) word "precursor", which was too ambiguous. I describe Pepsiman as an ancestor, because it IS precisely so. Literally, it did it before the others. The YouTube video was there precisely for the benefit of people who (like you, apparently) have never played that –admittedly obscure, and poorly rated– niche game. (It WAS niche back then, the only one of its kind, as far as I know. Fashions evolve...)
But let me explicit the issue. The reviewer's comparison to "Crash Bandicoot style" was about them both having game levels where the player character is restricted to a linear 3-D path oriented towards the "horizon", going "inside the screen". So much is true. But Crash Bandicoot remains a classic platformer otherwise. It PLAYS like one. You move however you please, by turning left, right, forward, backward on that path, and occasionally climbing. Pepsiman is fundamentally different, in that the player character cannot stop moving forward. Which, I believe, is the very definition of running games. Hence why I edited the definition to make it more precise. And why I explicited the difference with racing games that have you "driving a pedestrian", exactly like a vehicke. Pepsiman cannot come to a complete halt, or freely control its speed.
I dare consider that while a YT video (or any other) is not an authoritative reference, it isn't any less valid than a picture when it comes to just illustrating something. A photo, OR a YouTube video, cannot declare an Elvis impersonator to be his identical twin, but would it not suffice to illustrate the impersonation?
I certainly do not claim, or even suggest, that Pepsiman inspired modern running games. I just called it an "ancestor" because, without possible denying, it did ten years earlier what mobile games are doing today. My guess is, someone probably re-invented the idea[citation needed]! ;-)
I think I've pinpointed the problem we have, you and I: that review doesn't make it explicit enough that in Pepsiman, the player character cannot stop moving forward, it is stuck by design in a permanent running motion. The only real difference being that Pepsiman has finite levels, and the aim is to reach the end of each. Given that I have serious difficulty dedicating time to WP (busy job, and poor internet connection), might I rely on you to find a more precise review of Pepsiman that would explicit the "endless running" element of its gameplay? In case you don't consider this YouTube video sufficiently evident. From having extensively played that game ten years ago (and unlocking both hidden costumes: old-style Pepsiman & wireframe Pepsiman), I can certify the video is 100% undoctored, and shows the game's first two levels with complete faithfulness. The Truth is facts are out there, they just need someone who will dig them out. I'll trust you to redo that (rather relevant) edit the way you see fit, since you seem more suited than me for that kind of wikification.
P.S.: Am I to understand that by WP rules, a YouTube video cannot possibly be a reference, ever, even when it is a live TV recording of the WTC towers crumbling on 9/11? How else can one cite something that "the whole world has seen" (or can see)? Surely all the written news articles are not better than authentic and undoctored images! (Unlike Apollo 11, no conspirationist has dared accuse the 9/11 images of being fake. Mercifully.) In the present case, playing the game is irrefutable proof, but few people can do so and verify firsthand. Can you suggest something better than an in-game video?
While we're at it, could you please indicate to me which videogame review sites are considered reliable/proper references for WP, as a general pointer? I'm sure they're not all equivalent, but I really lack experience in that area, and I may need it for later contributions that would spare my colleagues some needless questioning. Thank you in advance. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, how's this for a much better reference? [2]
This review from a major and very official site explicitly describes two essential elements in our discussion: "combining the Pepsiman concept with a parody of the aging classic, Paperboy", "It was nice to see the Paperboy premise dragged back into relevance" (darn, how come nobody -including me- had thought of that indisputable precursor and inspiration?
And "Pepsiman, get set... GO! You're off like a bat out of hell, running into the screen on a single track path that invariably leads straight into danger." All that's missing is Temple Run's monkeys. Everything is funnier with monkeys.[3]
I think I can rest my case? Anyway, I can still get me a good 4 hours of sleep before having to go to work. See you tomorrow... Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancestor means there is a line of descent. It doesn't simply mean thing that happened in the past, it implies that there is some sort of connection. It is, essentially, saying that it was influential in some way. That's the main problem I have with including the game. As for the YouTube video, there are several serious problems with using that link, specifically, as a source. 1: I'm pretty sure it's a copyright violation, as I do not have any reason to believe that the uploader got permission from Pepsi (or whoever owns the rights) to use it. A fair use argument could be made, but it isn't being made by the uploader, so that's right out the window. This falls under WP:ELNO and is a deal-breaker. (WP:VIDEOREF has more about that, if you want to know) 2: it is simply footage of the game without commentary, making it WP:PRIMARY. I'm not denying that it's a factual and unedited clip of the game being played, I'm saying that even mentioning it as being significant to the history of platform games as a genre needs additional, reliable sources. It's not up to you or me to bestow that honor on a game here on Wikipedia, someone needs to find sources.
Regarding a list of acceptable sources, I'm sure there is something out there, but I don't know where. This might be helpful. I may be wrong, but I don't think the Gamefaqs review is going to cut it. It's user generated content. Since anybody can publish a review on GameFaqs, it's not really the kind of source an article needs. At the very very least, find articles by writers who either use there real names, or who many people have heard of. Being published in a magazine with an editorial review process is even better. I'll keep my eyes out for a better source, but it may not actually exist yet. We'll see.
Finally, I have not read your talk page, I simply noted that you are not a brand new editor and figured that you were familiar with the distinction between WP:TRUTH and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Also, sadly, there actually are a handful of people who believe that the 9/11 videos are fake, but that is waaaaay outside the scope of this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a little bit of editorial judgement is all that's needed to include the mentions of Paperboy and Pepsiman; for a reader to verify that they have single-track running mechanics, using the game itself as reference is enough. As far as verifiability and WP:SYNTH are concerned, I'd be more worried about having a section for endless running games at all - there's no RS that situates the genre as related to platformers, but we have it anyway, because removing it would make the article worse. Sure, it would be great to have a third party source commenting on the connection between these games, if someone exists; but if we don't imply that the earlier games influenced the later, and we just list them as examples of the base game mechanic, it's all well and good. Diego (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I can see that Pepsiman is an example of a running game, it looks like a fun game, too. I'm just not convinced that it's significant enough to belong here, and the Youtube clip did nothing to clear that up. If endless running games had there own article, then sure, whatever, but not for an article as broad as this one. Common sense isn't so common, and mentioning some obscure promotional game as being a significant example of a subgenre is not self-evident. As for Paperboy, I am personally baffled as to why we're even talking about it as a platformer. There are no platforms! It has more in common, from a game mechanics point of view, with scrolling shooters like Zaxxon than it does with platformers, even 'running' ones. Having sources would clear all this up, of course, and that's why we love them. If a RS calls Pepsiman a running game (or noteworthy at all), or calls Paperboy a platformer, my objections evaporate in an instant. Editorial judgement includes editorial restraint. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Paperboy is really not an endless running game since 1) the levels are finite and 2) you generally have more control than "1 dimension" (you can speed up or down in addition to left + right). Elements of endless runners might come from it, but we need sources for it. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've found these on a quick search: [4] [5]
I'm sure there are better references to be found out there, but I'm struggling with my outdated internet during a brief sick leave. Time for some team work, friends. (See also end of next paragraph, about the classification of video games.) Issar El-Aksab (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I've included the reference from Joystiq that calls Pepsiman an "on-rails running game". You're right that other continuous scrolling games have more tenuous connections, but they're not as disconnected as they seem. An after all, they appear under the "running games" section (as precursors to the modern "endless" variants), so it doesn't matter that they don't have platforms - they belong in that section about games that stay on a moving track; as I said, what's debatable is the connection of this section with the main article. Diego (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't make it very clear, but I agree with you. My point about Zaxxon is that these distinctions between platformer and running game and even shmups are always going to be somewhat subjective. This is why I am reluctant to trust weaker sources for this sort of thing. I'm going to say that most modern endless runners are platformers, and this is probably a good place for the section. I have no basis for saying this other than personal experience. I wish someone would publish a Taxonomy of Video Games, that would be neat. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we won't find that anytime soon. But we can use figures of popularity and sales to identify the most notable video games that seem to they fit in the genre according to our best judgement, as representative examples. Diego (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)\
As a matter of fact, Wikipedia already has an article dealing with the delicate issue of videogame genres. Basically, you would sooner discipline the Brownian motion than put THAT unruly sector of human creativity inside tidy neat compartments: [6] Issar El-Aksab (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ZOMG, somebody's [citation needed]ing the 9/11 airliners? Aw man, I thought we went over that already in Edit War II, and we won by inventing the nukes. ;-)
But anyway... Thank you for the all pointers, Grayfell. Very helpful, one is never too old to learn the finer details about verifiability.
I'm not too dissatisfied with the "wikifeeling" of this matter so far. We even avoided diving into a premature Oktobickerfest in September. Gentlemen, I think what we have here is a SUCCESS to communicate. I really like the way Diego improved my contribution in text and reference. The difference one word can make...
Speraking of which, I have one hesitation: ancestor, precursor... it seems to me that in videogames, an "ancestor" is simply one that predated, while "precursor" is, as with rulers, one that filled the same position before, making the "precursor" in need of a direct relation reference. But perhaps you feel it's the other way round, Grayfell? My Longman dictionary asserts that a precursor "existed before something else and influenced its development". Methinks we only need to find the adequate word. Spiritual precursor, perhaps? Things don't HAVE to always be black or white, not even on Wikipedia, there are also shades of grey. Again, I'm only saying that "my" old-timers came earlier, and were based on the same gaming principle, only non-endless. Pepsiman received poor reviews (which would raise many a Subway Surfers fan's eyebrow today!), and was a sales failure (cue card: "fans, raise BOTH eyebrows aghast!"). So, most likely, it didn't inspire many people. Paperboy, however, is undoubtedly (one of?) the earliest "on-rails" obstacle-surviving game(s), and pretty obviously belongs to that era where gaming mechanics were being forged for the generations to come. ("Whoa Nellie, careful in that there minefield, pilgrim!")
Re. the copyright violation of the video, since it was a commercial videogame and an "interactive advertising" in the first place, I seriously doubt the Pepsi company would object to anyone spreading such images, especially in a free and unmodified manner. In fact, they might even get the idea to sue Subway Surfers for plagiary. ("But I'll deny ever suggesting that to them!" Don't want any trouble.)
Here's a hopefully constructive suggestion: indeed, running games have rather little in common with platformers overall. They may even have more in common with "action racing" games, such as (the aptly named) Wipeout. While videogame categories always have more or less blurry frontiers (the driving bits in Jak and Daxter spring to mind, or the hoverboard races in the first Ratchet and Clank), it IS a specific genre here, is it not? Methinks the problem is not not as much with my edit, as with something more global in the section where I made it, wouldn't you say? Jolly good. So, how about splitting the article from its "ancestor" tree, into its own cut? It WOULD be fun "if endless running games had there own article"[1] Settling for the least bad solution always makes me slightly bristle inside. "Oh, bother. I do hate shoddy work." – (Eglantine Price, apprentice witch)
Finally... shmups?[citation needed] Oy, vhat de smurf is a shmup? Oh. Okay, I see. That's when I'm reminded English isn't my first (or even second) language. Bah, no worries, I'll wikify it myself. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When talking about video games, I think that both ancestor and precursor basically mean the same thing. I think a better term might just be 'early example'. No reason to get too fancy, right? It's probably obvious, but I'm kinda a hard-ass when it comes to sources, especially for video games. I hold the odd opinion that video games get better when video game players take the subject a little bit seriously. With that in mind, I would gladly contribute to the running game article (or whatever) but I don't even know where to begin collecting sources. It seems like an expansion of this section might be a good way to start? There plenty of examples of the genre out there, and the term does seem to be widely recognized. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm better at "feeling" words and language, but your proposition "feels" like a significant improvement in encyclopedic formulation. Fancy can't hold the candle for efficient, ever. It's like with porn: many people can recognize it, who wouldn't be very good at making some. ;-) So, I second "early example".
Personally, humour is something I take VERY seriously. So I can only agree with your natural respect for fun in general and videogames in particular. Especially when I meet someone whose strict principles meet a dedication for teamwork and improving things.
Unfortunately, daily occupations won't let me apply all the lessons I've learned, and I'm going to let you people do what you're better at than myself. I'll stay around, though, and contribute when I can. My strong suit has always been in "thinking outside the box": spotting connections, initiating new leads, then let others rework and improve my drafts until only the initial spirit remains recognizable. Suits me just fine. Go team! Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ode to Indrian (and to his kin, when shoe fits man)[edit]

Alas, colleague, you do me wrong,
To write me off so hastily
I did my homework all along,
So why punctuate me tersely?!?

A fever had me grind to a halt
I'm sick and tired, really, these days
But it's neither your blame nor fault. :-)
Oh how you do me wrong, let me count the ways:

You are often half right
You are often half wrong
I played Paperboy, but not Zaxxon
So you were half right
But *I* never mention Zaxxon,
Not me, check again. That's half wrong.

Paperboy has many obstacles to dodge
For each "paper shot" that one has to lodge.
It's a dominant note[7], I won't budge.
And yet, in this I could oblige,
Except I'd undermine the reference:
Much subtle work could unravel hence

Paperboy, my OR? Hardly!
At worst, someone's POV: [8] [9] [10]
Sure, there may be other links best.
You're dedicated, seek them out, be my guest!
Your local internet is probably stratospheric.
Mine is, at best, something prehistoric. :-(

For now, I'll acknowledge your trump,
Just 'cos da Paperboy can't jump!
I'm just yielding on technical form:
If you don't jump, it's no "platform"

As for Zaxxon, what you worded...
Its Wiki article has none of it mentioned
Good luck adding that [citation needed]
That tough baby's all yours, my time's quite limited

The thing is, in videogame genres,
Often. the. frontiers. are. significantly. blurs.
We can't be too strict, and give in to terror
Sometimes them Rules it's better to ignore

Forgive me for not answering you in prose drab
But I'm the timeless poet, Issar El-Aksab (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, you get points for creativity, but not for wikipedia policy unfortunately. The two sources you provided (yes there are three links, but one is a user review on GameFaqs and therefore does not meet RS standards) both state that Pepsiman borrows some elements from Paperboy, which is all fine and good. Feel free to include that in an article on Pepsiman with my blessing. That is, however, a far cry from stating that Paperboy represents an early "on-rails running game" and therefore serves as some sort of precursor (or ancestor or whatever you want to call it, this is not a semantic argument like the one above) to games like Temple Run. If you want to put Paperboy into the evolutionary chain of the endless runner, you need a source that connects those dots, otherwise you are engaging in original research. Two editors in the discussion above agreed on this point, so you are already going against consensus by insisting on mentioning Paperboy here. Also, you need to dial back the snark on your edit summaries just a hair since engaging in straw man tactics is not particularly endearing. While I have made reference in my summaries to Paperboy's similarity to scrolling shooters of the early 1980s, I am not planning to actually add that info to any articles, so there is no original research to call out. It is your OR regarding Paperboy that is at issue here. That said, I did like the poem. Indrian (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(heh) "A spoonful of sugar, et cætera"... Enjoy this rare moment, world, for it is the great bard's first masterpiece to be published for free under GFDL!
Anyway, let's not overstretch the pleasure of a moment of fantasy. 'Tis not the place.
I am very well aware that my sources aren't (or had little hope of being) up to WP standards. I was just hoping that people having an issue at heart would bother to push the research further, instead of generally reverting and leaving me with the burden of proof. Need I always repeat that I have very little time to give WP some SERIOUS work? A revert only takes a second. A lot more is required to find and certify an info, to do some constructive work. It's just beyond my material possibilities. By next week, I'll be up to my vertex in work and strictly an occasional pitcher-in (pitch-inner?).
If only somebody, anybody, had both the means AND the will to just do the damn in-depth research. Me, I've got to wait at least half a minute every time I open a new web page. No fib. Now, if nobody cares to investigate deeper in what seems rather convincing to some people out there (about 46,200 results for "Pepsiman Paperboy review" [11]), I'd say it's Wikipedia's loss, period. There ARE sources that conect the dots, just none that you'd bother to seek out yourself.
Like I said, it wasn't MY point to insist on in the first place. So, if it's OR, it's not my OR, and I won't make it a personal matter. Even if Paperboy is undoubtedly a "non-endless, on-rails, unstoppably moving, obstacle-dodging game" made decades earlier. So much, IMHO, is a strictly objective summary of its definition. Like I said, I've decided to ultimately drop the Paperboy issue, since I find it rather minor. But it's not insignificant. Especially if it's true. Which it just might be. Is the ocean anything more than all them little drops?
As for declaring two editors a "consensus"... They are, doubtlessly, a majority. But a consensus of TWO? Dude, it takes at least three to make a crowd! (Should I interpret a loaded argument here? Seriously.) I suggest you study Statistics, to get a better perspective of the minimum numbers that scientifically define an objective trend. (Apologies in advance, it's very tedious stuff.)
Finally, I amicably recommend you go easy on the "endearingness" lessons, especially if you can't tell a lighthearted pun from a passive-aggressive attack. And if you don't mind previously making assumptions about a fellow editor's ignorance of the topic he's been discussing for a while. And if you don't care to discuss your repeated reverts in the talk page, just skimming it with F3. Have you even noticed the last link I gave? And read it? Poor form, sir. (sigh) And to think I wrote you an ode as a token of goodwill... Alas, poor Issar.
I'll just leave you to meditate this, fellow colleague: in this matter, I've given YOUR opinion careful enough consideration to conclude that it had a fair right to prevail. Spontaneously. But when did you return the sporting spirit? You win, friend, and you might even deserve to, but you won by default. Ever heard of Pyrrhus? You sure this is the best Wikipedian you can be? Someone might label it OR...
All this for a videogame... I'm really not enjoying anything of such disputes. My ego doesn't care. Honestly. But my ideal vision of Wikipedia is hurting. And so is my trachea. Time to take them meds and get some rest. Sick and tired. Please close the door on my way out.
P.S.: You might want to furnish that user page of yours some day. Felt a bit un-homely. Probaly because of the echo.
Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out, here is the logic you are trying to make:
  • Paperboy was an influence for Pepsiman
  • Pepsiman is considered the first "endless runner" game.
And you are trying to make the logical leap Paperboy is an influence on the "endless runner" genre. This does not follow from basic logic, and thus falls under WP:SYNTH. Is it possible? Sure, no one has refuted that this could ever be the case, but at the same time we can't claim this as the case without a source or two to make the connection. So as Indrian has pointed out, the Paperboy/Pepsiman connection can be fleshed out over at Pepsiman, but until you have a source, it can't be included here. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to point out, your accuracy ratio lies between 25% and zero%, and I'll leave you with the moral responsibility of your own logical leaps. How many times do I have to write it verbatim: "a NON-ENDLESS running game"? Sheesh. Is this some kind of prank? Not. Funny. Guys. "Run, Forest Pepsiman, run!"
Just out of absurd optimism, I'll calmly state it one last time: Paperboy, labeled –not by me– on its page as "action", and sure as heck not as a "shoot-them-up", is just (one of?) the oldest known game consisting of constant scrolling + forced "on-rails" forward motion of the player character + obstacle avoiding. THAT'S. ALL. I. WROTE. For reminders, a shoot-them-up leaves you free to move about at will within the scrolling screen. Want some really absurd OR? Here's an essay topic for you: list all the videogames that were NOT solely doing stuff already seen before. Objectively original innovators creating something genuinely original. Good luck with that pan.
The Canabalt reference[12] only really states one thing: is it considered officially the first game to do this endlessly, thus initiating a specific genre. Otherwise, spend five small minutes on YouTube and you'll see that Subway Surfers is, in official videogaming terminology, a Pepsiman clone, just made endless. And I'd bet my left pinky toe that some endless, random-generated games existed way before Canabalt, just they weren't about some guy RUNNING.
It's bad enough that this OR matter is drifting to a crippling phobia all over Wikipedia. But split hairs about what I wrote and expressed, and then explained? Just... no. I always racked top grades at essay AND text analysis, in two languages. So... no. Not going there, not wasting effort re-explaining. Do your homework next time, and REALLY read what a person says.
Might help you with other users some day. My days of splitting hairs on Wikipedia are over, starting Monday morning. I need to dedicate my time to productive things for a change. New job, new priorities.
Hunh. Wouldn't you believe it. This very instant, I get a text message from a patient with a problem. Hope I can settle this by phone, still not fully cured and non-contagious myself. Have fun with your videogames & debates[13], kids.
Wikipedia may not be an anarchy, but jeez, some days it's a certified mess. Even ants are smarter than that, when it comes to pulling together in the useful direction. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you believe that if you are prolix enough and express yourself with flowery enough language other editors will be unable to discern your personal attacks, lack of civility, and arguments bereft of strong Wikipedia policy foundation, but trust me when I say your obfuscation is not working. I guess I can engage in some of that "absurd optimism" as well though by assuming your rudeness does not betray a lack of good faith on your part and by explaining how you have your facts and basic video game history wrong alongside your disdain and disregard for Wikipedia policy.
Since you want to boil your argument down to a single unsourced contention that Paperboy is the first -- or an early -- forced scrolling game featuring obstacle avoidance, I can dispense with your claim easily enough. All the early forced scrolling shooters, which date back to 1981 with Konami's Scramble, feature constant scrolling and obstacle avoidance. But wait, you say, scrolling shooters let you move forwards and backwards within the playfield, while Paperboy only lets you move side to side! Okay, if that is really important to you, I will play along. The 1981 driving game Turbo from Sega features constant scrolling, forced "on rails" forward motion of the player, and obstacle avoidance. So does the 1977 driving game Speed Freak from Vectorbeam. So does the 1974 driving game Speed Race from Taito, the very first scrolling arcade video game. You are over a decade and a dozen games too late for any of those claims.
But hold on again, you say: all innovations in the videogame industry consist of taking previously defined elements and combining them in new ways, so none of this diminishes Paperboy's importance in the evolution of running games. I would certainly agree with that statement if Paperboy's influence on endless runners can be ascertained. That means reliable sources making the link, because you and I, no matter what we know -- or think we know -- about videogames are not acknowledged experts in the field or publishing our claims through an organization with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (and no, getting good grades on assignments in two languages in school does not make someone an automatic expert in anything). If a reliable source places any importance on Paperboy as an endless runner precursor, I have no problem with a properly sourced statement to that effect appearing in this article. The onus is on you, however, to provide appropriate sourcing since you want this information to remain. What you call "phobia," I call responsible scholarship. When you let any random person come along and draw any inference or conclusion he or she pleases within an article, you get the "anarchy" or "certified mess" you claim to abhor. I suggest you take to heart the reasons why certain wikipedia policies are derived from the premise that good sourcing is important for quality articles: it might help you with other users someday. Indrian (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There you go again, blatantly misquoting and misinterpreting me, insisting to drag the argument into very odd conclusions you attribute to me. Is this how you dedicatedly keep POV and OR out of Wikipedia? Gee, how stupid it was of me, to carefully add an impossible to challenge specification in the article's definitions, distinguishing running games from games with mere forced SCROLLING, and from racing games where you "drive a pedestrian".
Half of the truth is the worst of lies, because it borrows the appearance of truth. When you (not alone there) repeatedly take out of context a fraction of what I write, in spite of all my corrections, I'll simply refuse to argument pointlessly any longer.
Especially long after I've explicitly yielded on the original element, until I (maybe) find the official enough references your intellectual honesty doesn't care to seek.
Somebody urgently needs to go back and read very carefully what exactly the introduction of the OR reference article says. I don't NEED a CIA geographist to confirm that Paris is the capital of France, or a chromatologist's published thesis to say that the sky is blue, if my competence makes me confident under common sense that references exist for something I wrote. When you readily cast off all unofficial articles about what I report (NOT "synthetize"), and won't do any research of your own for more official ones, you create a clear rules fundamentalism and build a procedural bureaucracy. (Read those links: they're PRECIOUS to study in-depth.)
Summum jus, summa injusta: sticking too strictly to the letter of the law is the surest way to betray its spirit. (Old Roman legal proverb. Source: "Le Petit Larousse Illustré", 1978 edition, pink pages.)
It feels too much like we're not even speaking on the same plane here. I honestly hate to brag, but since this situation leaves me no choice, I must present my competence criteria here. This user owns and has played at least 1,250 games on PlayStation2 alone. About half as many on PlayStation1. Dozens on SMS, NES and NDS. Found without any help the secret level in Pac-Mania. Knows a secret code for Battle Arena Toshinden that you still can't find on the internet. I've played the ORIGINAL home console Pong in the early Eighties, the arcade versions of Rygar, SF2 and Mortal Kombat, owned the original Donkey Kong game-and-watch (until an accursed cretin borrowed and broke that now priceless antique), single-handedly programmed a Super Mario clone on the ZX Spectrum, subscribed to Official PlaySyation Magazine until the final issue (among many other pro magazines, full boxes of them) and read in detail the game reviews... That's more than 27 years of very dedicated experience on the subject and study thereof. Unlike a certain "civilness teacher" (here's a reference to that element), I won't implicitly doubt your competence in talking about video games. I'll just ask, neutrally phrased: please state the expertise you have in this topic to challenge the evidence of my edits. If you still want to beat a dead horse.
"No matter how old or experienced you become, you'll always be someone's student." – (Chinese wisdom)
In a nutshell, I listen to everyone, but I can't stand people who won't listen back to me.
Especially people who feel all threatened by a couple of light jokes. Humour is a serious matter, FYI.
Following the teachings of the Course (as a mere interested outsider), I only ever criticize actions, not people. I'll leave you to your insistence on seeing "covert personal attacks", and to your odd obsession with shooters.
P.S.: You're wrong and in OR again: my good grades officially prove I know how to precisely express what I mean. The Educational System certified it. And I mean it: if you won't seek an official reference with YOUR good quality internet, leaving it to a guy who only has 12 hours of electricity daily, then you don't care about the truth of facts or collaborating on the betterment of Wikipedia: you only care about winning arguments.
You're MOST welcome to prove me wrong there. Nothing could make me happier, really. Crescent and cross on my heart, sahib.
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have a lot of paperwork to prepare for Monday. If you don't take that onus as yours, nobody will pick it up, and that's that. I don't have the luxury to care any longer.
"I'm not a random person, I'm a perfect number" – (Prisoner 6)
Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Puzzle platformers[edit]

A couple of suggestions that might deserve mentioning/developing. Alongside Vikings were two famous similar games: Humans, and the Lemmings series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issar El-Aksab (talkcontribs) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grayfell