Template talk:Infobox video game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox VG)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Media[edit]

Why does this entry exist? What information does it give us to say that it was distributed on particular physical (or non-physical) media? The OS seems more than sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Last Updated" section[edit]

For games that are still in development (such as early access, alpha/beta, and games with ongoing updates) it would be useful to have an "Updated" or "Last Updated" section that can be used to denote the date of the last update. This should, of course, be an optional parameter since it's not needed in finalized games, but this is more important as the early access trend grows. The Software infobox template has this, for example. Keavon (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is useful not only for early access games, but games that are never really "finalized" and get continually updated. At the moment, I'm looking at Live for Speed, which was technically released in 2005, but received it's last version update on 27 Sep 2014. This issue might be handled by adding something like "Initial Release", "Stable Release", "Preview Release" dates and versions. --Mindfrieze (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We only got rid of it a couple of years ago. It was an unmitegated mess of unreferenced "stuff". If its important put it in the prose. -X201 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have Early Access and games that are continually updated are becoming more popular, I think it would be more useful now than it was at that time in the past. Keavon (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Shut down[edit]

I believe we should add a "Shut down" property, to be added right under "Released". This would only be applicable for games that can ONLY be played while connected to an official server, and thus become unplayable when all such servers are discontinued. Perhaps "Shut down" is not the best wording, please suggest if you have better teminology. Example: Age of Empires Online shut down on 1 July 2014. Sygmoral (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this would be useful for games like Age of Empires. Keavon (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Discontinued would be a better nme for it, but yeah. Great idea for games like Planetside. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 7:25 PM EST, April 9, 2015

[edit]

Hundreds of game articles I've looked at required a logo + screenshot. Typically people use the infobox for the logo, and the screenshot is displayed messily below it. See Age of Empires II: The Forgotten as an example. Sometimes only the game box cover is displayed in the infobox (See this). Can we add a "screenshot" parameter to the infobox similar to Template:Infobox software? -- Wonderfl (reply) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Its been a long standing consensus to only have one image in the infobox, with preference give to the game's cover or logo over a screenshot. Having screenshots in the article body helps illustrate it. The number of screenshots allowed in each article is limited, if one of these is moved to the infobox we'll end up with even bigger passages of text without an image to break them up. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SteamOS[edit]

Our line on Steam in the infobox has been "Steam is not a platform but a distribution service", though this ostensibly changes with SteamOS (its own platform). I'd like to preempt a few edit wars by clarifying here first: should we advise against adding "SteamOS" in the infobox platform section simply because it's the same as saying "Linux"-compatible? czar  14:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that being the position on it. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Platforms[edit]

"The console or operating system the game was released for." is written in past tense. If we follow this guidelines strictly, it means that every single articles in Category:Upcoming video games, Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2015, Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2016 and every other games that have a port in development lacking platform information in the info box. In my opinion, this is not sensible as platform information are often very important to articles. Therefore, I suggested to add a short statement and turn the sentence to something like "The console or operating system the game was released for or is set to be released on." AdrianGamer (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me but alternatively rephrase: "The game's supported platforms (console or operating system) both as released and in development." Also not sure we need to specify "console or operating system". czar  18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
IIRC Console and operating system are there for a reason. They're there to cover stuff like On-Live etc. - X201 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems clear-cut for fully-launched games and upcoming games, but fuzzy for ones which have been released on some platforms and are only scheduled to launch (but may yet be cancelled) on others. Is it worth distinguishing the two - either having two fields, or recommending a notation for as-yet-unlaunched platforms? Or is it enough to assume that the reader will also notice the "Release date(s)" field, which will probably be filled in in these cases, and appreciate that some listed platforms are in the future? --McGeddon (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can assume readers notice the release dates field. Besides, port cancellation is not common after all. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Add co-op as an acceptable game mode[edit]

Currently the description for mode says "Playing modes offered by the game. Currently, the only accepted values are single-player, multiplayer, or both." However, co-op is a very different game mode from multiplayer. Multiplayer basically means something with multiple players where not all the players are working together to achieve the same specific goal. This could mean a team-based game where teams fight each other or perhaps an MMO where there's lots of people not doing the same thing together. Co-op is much like a singleplayer game where there is one express purpose that a small group of players work together to achieve. I would not think of Portal 2, for example, as a multiplayer game. Currently, by forcing co-op games to be considered multiplayer games, this is making the definition of "mode" way too broad, almost to the point of making it unnecessary. Co-op is as much a singleplayer experience as it is a multiplayer experience. Also, there's a lot of co-op games adding co-op as a mode even though it's not "valid" according to this template's standard. These are all examples of games that are undeniably co-op games and certainly not multiplayer games that use the co-op mode in the infobox: Portal 2, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, PayDay: The Heist, and Magicka. Since co-op is a totally different mode from multiplayer and I would even consider it closer to a singleplayer experience than a multiplayer experience, we really should add "co-op" as an allowed game mode. Keavon (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As a comment, please see [1] this last discussion. I think the fear was that with some game, the list of modes could grow huge if you include all the various co-op and coop/competitive mode. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that. I agree that growing the number of modes to something like the ones mentioned in the beginning of that topic would be very bad. Modes should be for the most broad level. But I see most broad level as being singleplayer, multiplayer, and co-op. With those three modes, I could categorize any game in existence so it should not grow any further. Things like "competitive", "free-for-all", "team-based", etc. are all very specific and don't belong in the mode field. However, a game like Portal 2 co-op is simply not appropriate being classified as "multiplayer". If we extend the allowed values to three and no more, that will allow all games to be encompassed. Since this limitation is already a problem, the articles I linked to above have gone ahead and broken the standard because the standard simply doesn't fit those game. However, games on that list some say "co-operative", some say "cooperative", and some say "co-op". If the standard were extended to allow "co-op", the name for this could actually be standardized rather than going off various unofficial names. With a more accommodating list of three options, this would also deter articles from creating their own of overly-specific modes by going along with the idea of ignoring the "allowed" values. If a standard is bad, people just won't use it, and then you have a mess of nonstandard names. I think that it's obvious that, if the majority of the biggest co-op games out there have broken the standard, the standard simply doesn't fit. I would like to continue this discussion and ultimately (hopefully) come to a consensus that "co-op" should be added as an allowed mode along with adding a strong notice that no other mode names should be used. Keavon (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, I think it would be a good idea to go with your suggestion in that last discussion, creating a template to only allow certain video game modes. I've been searching through a lot of articles in the past week and have noticed hundreds that don't conform to documentation. I think it will save a lot time and make future maintenance and cleanup easier if a template restricting game modes was added. – The1337gamer (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've known about this problem for sometime - I was trying to clear the decks in order to fix it, but, seeing as someone has opened the can of worms, here goes. This problem is much, much worse than you imagine, Masem's fear of it growing too large is already a reality. The Modes field is already out of control.

This sterling piece of work by Hellknowz in 2013 shows that its already a mess. Please follow the link and look at the mode field, its truly shocking.

Hellknowz's report shows that there are 16799 different entries for the mode field. Ignoring spelling differences, that's 2462 permutations for a field that supposedly has only three possible permutations. There are numerous spellings and redirects of Single Player and Multiplayer, there are other values like Two Player or Alternating Play added and there are explanatory notes like being available on one platform but not another, there are single player and multiplayer separated by slashes and/or line breaks, There's Co-op, ad-hoc, wifi, TCP, modem, 2 player battle, LAN, sharing, campaign, split-screen, etc

I'm willing to start the clean up (it will allow for other important WPVG stuff to be carried out with AWB), we just need to decide what goes and what stays. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's a *lot*, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's even gotten worse since then. I still stand that all games can be accurately described as any combination of singleplayer, multiplayer, and co-op, but any more than that is too overdoing it and anything less (i.e. the current two) is too limited. I would be willing to help the cleanup effort and standardize a bunch of articles if we can decide on that. As a separate issue, I think that "single-player" should be spelled without the hyphen, but I'll ignore that for now. I think that the exact standard should be "Single-player", "Multiplayer", and "Co-op". Each should start with a capital letter and they should be listed in the order of most importance for each game, i.e. a primarily singleplayer game like BioShock 2 can be listed starting with Single-player and have its less central mode (multiplayer) be listed second as Multiplayer. Keavon (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How can we proceed, either through a further debate/gather of consensus or through proposing such changes and initiating a site-wide cleanup effort? Keavon (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the composer field[edit]

Currently, it states:

The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music.

  1. List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack. Discuss inclusion criteria on a per-game basis on the talk page.

I think the following additions would improve this field and cause less controversy on certain pages.

The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music.

  1. List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack. If possible, order them by how much they contributed (from most to least). Generally, the game's credits will have them in this order, but not always.
  2. Composers who were contracted to write a single song (opening theme, ending theme, etc.) should not be listed if their role is mentioned in the article itself.
  3. Only list people who directly wrote (new) music for the game. Try to not list people who's music was re-used, either arranged or directly, from another game. Discuss inclusion criteria on a per-game basis on the talk page.

Any thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

the logic should still be consistent with the other personnel fields, that only notable people or ones clearly identified in third-party sources, be included. I do agree with the additional bullet points. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Prequel/Sequel[edit]

Can we PLEASE add a sequel & prequel section? It would help with games like Lego Marvel Superheroes and Lego Marvel's Avengers, where you could barely tell that they're related without leaving Wikipedia, or games like Planetside and Planetside 2 that don't have a series page like games such as Final Fantasy may. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 7:30 PM EST, April 9, 2015.

A mention in the prose and again in the lede should be enough. czar  01:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that this suffers from what fans might want to see, and can be seen fought over. As czar says if it is a true prequel or sequel as documented by sources, it can be listed in the lead. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Masem:, When you say "this suffers from what fans might want to see, and can be seen fought over," do you mean some people might fight each other over which video game is a sequel? Also, I feel that the infobox should contain the most basic information that is most commonly looked for (Title, release date, producers, etc), and Prequel/Sequel is one of those things. @Czar:, while what you say to some extent makes sense and is true, sequel/prequel info isn't always in the lede. --AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 8:23 PM EST, April 13, 2015.
Yes, people will fight over whether a game is a sequel/prequel in story, as opposed to a game being a retail sequel to another game. Or, basically, for games with large #s of titles like Zelda or Assassin's Creed, the difference between release and story chronology can be difficult to track and the monikers "prequel"/ "sequel" lack meaning without context. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To back up Masem's point with an example "Is the video game Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier canon to the main story, or is it a spin-off?" This article has suffered five years of flip-flop edits and even though there's a consensus, other editors still "correct the error". - X201 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @X201: and @Masem:. I suppose we hypothetically could make two seprate chronology sections for both retail and canonical sequels but it would be a little confusing for people looking to add information to a page. Maybe we should use those little chronological boxes instead. --AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 8:12 PM EST, April 14, 2015.
I can't find clear guidelines on when or when not to use succession boxes, but your edit to Lego Marvel's Avengers doesn't seem right. It doesn't succeed the previous title, it just follows it. The previous game continues to exist in the exact same state as before. It is stated to be a sequel in the lead and the two Lego Marvel games are grouped together in the Lego series navbox at the bottom of the article. Do you believe this to be insufficient? Reach Out to the Truth 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...you are right, thanks @Reach Out to the Truth:. And yes, the succession box is sufficient. I literally didn't think about using them until last post. User:AKA Casey Rollins 8:33 PM EST, 15 April 2015.