Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 303: Line 303:
I'm starting to see edits related to E3 2021 possibly cancelled, and reports in multiple sources seem to say this is from the Convention Commission of the City of Los Angeles (Board of Los Angeles Convention and Tourism Development Commission). Is there a chance we should revert such edits on the associated article as well as all relevant edits until we know more? [[User:JalenFolf|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:white">Jalen Folf</span>]] [[User talk:JalenFolf|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(talk)</span>]] 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting to see edits related to E3 2021 possibly cancelled, and reports in multiple sources seem to say this is from the Convention Commission of the City of Los Angeles (Board of Los Angeles Convention and Tourism Development Commission). Is there a chance we should revert such edits on the associated article as well as all relevant edits until we know more? [[User:JalenFolf|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:white">Jalen Folf</span>]] [[User talk:JalenFolf|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(talk)</span>]] 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|JalenFolf}}, I thought sources made it clear that only the live event at the Convention Center has been cancelled? There is still supposed to be a virtual event unlike last year as far as I know. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|JalenFolf}}, I thought sources made it clear that only the live event at the Convention Center has been cancelled? There is still supposed to be a virtual event unlike last year as far as I know. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
::The source I’ve just look at specifically mentioned the live event being cancelled.--[[Special:Contributions/70.27.244.104|70.27.244.104]] ([[User talk:70.27.244.104|talk]]) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


== [[Template:Game Boy line]] splitting ==
== [[Template:Game Boy line]] splitting ==

Revision as of 06:21, 1 March 2021

I wanted to revive this discussion, as I feel that it didn't receive enough attention at the time, and those who opposed it don't appear to have read it correctly. Basically, the proposal was that we add OpenCritic's percentage recommended score to Reception sections alongside Metacritic's weighted average, similar to how film articles list the Rotten Tomatoes approval rating alongside Metacritic's score (see here and here for some film examples). An example of this change would be:

Hades received "universal acclaim", according to review aggregator Metacritic.[1] On OpenCritic, it received an approval rating of 100% based on 111 reviews.[2]

  1. ^ Hades on Metacritic
  2. ^ Hades on OpenCritic

Of course, this all depends on whether or not OpenCritic can be considered reliable. Previous discussions—though ultimately inconclusive—appear (at least to me) to lean towards yes or maybe, with most concerns stemming instead from the redundancy of using both Metacritic and OpenCritic scores. However, with this proposal, redundancy should not be a concern; we can use Metacritic for scores, and OpenCritic for percentages. This also reduces the risk of relying too heavily on Metacritic.

Personally, I support this proposal, though I mostly just wanted to revive it to give it the proper discussion it deserves. I'd love to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it has been an issue of reliability (OC publishes its method of how it gets aggregate scores), but instead if its duplicate of MC scores, and that its database is still lagging from MC's. --Masem (t) 02:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this proposal is though. It's for the approval rating, which is separate information. It's like Rotten Tomatoes for films; it's separate from the MC score. JOEBRO64 02:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous comments on the matter. JOEBRO64 02:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk about something current and topical: Cyberpunk 2077. How do we address that unlike Metacritic, OpenCritic squishes everything together, all systems? While MC certainly has issues where some platforms have more registered reviews than others, often time the differing scores highlight platform discrepancies. OC has lost this entirely. Really, only 61% recommend a game that continues to hold a 90 universal acclaim MC score on PC? Is there no nuance to the fact that it has, relatively, few issues on PC, but tons on consoles? They have a notice up, of course, but that is lost in quoting the bare score or recommendation. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a single game should not derail this entire proposal. OpenCritic can be omitted from that specific page, or it can be included with an explanatory footnote (OpenCritic released a statement with more information, and several reliable sources reported on the situation, so it would be easy enough to write and cite). There's already precedent to omit regular practice if deemed necessary—The Last of Us Part II omits Metacritic's qualitative summary, for example—so if this proposal is ultimately approved, Cyberpunk 2077 can and should be discussed separately. – Rhain ☔ 03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rhain, if we have to be cautious of what games we should and shouldn't use this with, then why bother? Metacritic is universal and still the industry standard. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's blowing it out of proportion a little. It's one game that we need to be cautious with. With that logic, we might as well stop using Metacritic because of the issues with The Last of Us Part II. – Rhain ☔ 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I love OpenCritic's lovely design, I don't think I agree with the WP:DUE argument. Neutrality is specifically about viewpoints. Metacritic does not present a viewpoint; it is an aggregator. As ferret notes, as an aggregator, it differentiates in a contextually useful way that OpenCritic doesn't offer (right now). Argument 1 is that OpenCritic is used by the press, and I agree with that... but if you look up OpenCritic on Google News right now, outlets all writing about the banner than OpenCritic has concerning Cyberpunk 2077. I'm most interested in Argument 2. Is their process for determining reputability public, yeah? Could be useful for WP:VG/RS discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, quite frankly, I believe this would be a violation of WP:DUE. Opencritic is far, far less relevant than Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and this proposal would give them a level of prominence that they do not deserve based on the secondary coverage they themselves have received. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think prominence is that important. For example, IGN is given as much weight as Shacknews, even though one is obviously more well-known than the other. It should be based on whether the source is reliable or not, and given that it is serving a different function from Metacritic, it has value. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ferrets concern, and generally not needing any more aggregate data anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's simply no comparing MC and OC right now in terms of impact. We got rid of GameRankings for similar reasons, and adding another aggregator where it may just add a misleading metric is not all that helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposing comments above and the other several past discussions on this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They're not redundant measures. The Cyberpunk situation is extraordinary and not a good exception to build a case around. The 90 on Metacritic for PC has already been criticized because of the PR team's selective distribution of review codes to favorable outlets (since dropped to 86). I don't think it's useful to bring up Cyberpunk because both sites had issues with the way they handled it. As for OC considered on its own, the % recommended metric is a useful measure of consensus among reviews about a game in a way that MC's "average" obscures (*not really an average but a weighted average that is hidden from the reader about what the weights are). Games with so-called "mixed" or "polarized" reviews (i.e. lots of very high AND very low scores) as opposed to "average/middling" reviews are completely indistinguishable to Metacritic but obvious when looking at % recommended. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again... Put me down for team OC. My arguments have been made previously, I'm pretty sure. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was asked offwiki, here is some clarification. Previous opinion can be found at WT:VG/RS/Archive 18#OpenCritic
    Brief summary of current opinion: I don't find the "it's just another aggregator" argument remotely persuasive and instead find the "we shouldn't let Metacritic monopolize our summaries" persuasive. One thing different regarding Gamerankings versus OC is that Gamerankings was owned by CBS for a significant chunk of time before shutdown (CBS is also the owner of MC). OC is clearly different in this regard.
    While "they duplicate the overall summary %" might be a reasonable position, OC has other metrics that MC does not; the plots for polarity of reviewers for example (at least when I looked last). And, as I noted before, they are overall more transparent about their summaries and statistics.
    Overall, we should allow any and all use, wherever any editor sees fit, rather than this more-limited proposal under discussion. --Izno (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Repeating what I said on Discord... in a vacuum, if we had to choose between Metacritic and OpenCritic, just knowing about them on paper... we would never go with Metacritic. I think that great long-term move would be if OpenCritic started providing the percentage recommended separately by platform. That'd be great! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon reading your original linked arguments, Rhain. In response to "it's duplicative": the % recommended metric is different from a score average and provides more color, especially in cases of "mixed or average" reviews. In response to "it's not recognized enough as Metacritic": I get it but it's not intended to replace or duplicate Metacritic. It adds a metric that Metacritic does not provide, and it's certainly recognized enough where we would consider it an RS. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sounds good on paper, but per ferret's concerns about the scores across all platforms being squished together, not terribly helpful or useful. Unless OC manage to come up with a score for a certain title which it somehow lacks in aggregate on any single platform for Metacritic? Haleth (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Haleth: OpenCritic had a big banner on the site that could easily be reproduced in the article. Cyberpunk 2077's article currently reads: The PC release of Cyberpunk 2077 received "generally favorable" reviews from critics, according to Metacritic. The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the game received "mixed or average reviews". We could just add: On review aggregator OpenCritic, the game received a critical recommendation score of 62%, with a banner stating that the developer "intentionally sought to hide the true state of the game on Xbox One and PS4". A percentage of critics who recommend the site is an absolutely valid addition to what MC offers. Using one (basically unprecedented) edge-case doesn't even seem like an exception to that. It only takes a sentence to give the additional information, and (I think) contextualises it better than MC's three percentages. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacritic's numbers don't indicate whether a game has actually been recommended, either. Both can co-exist, providing meaningfully different things. Nobody is advocating to remove Metacritic. The numbers aren't going to mislead people; the rest of the Reception section will remain there, and the aggregators have never been a suitable substitute for the rest of a review section. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has nothing to do with my argument. I'm calling out a deficiency in OpenCritic, nothing more. Never once have I suggested or felt that somehow we'd replace or remove Metacritic, and that has zero to do with my issues with OC's methods. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that they both have deficiencies, and work better together than either would apart. There's a lot to like about OpenCritic; its transparency, namely, but '% recommendation' is a also measurable good for informing readers. Many people come to us over the aggregators looking for a well-defined summary overview of criticism. Providing both does just that (imo). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to speak for everyone. But I think it's, at best, redundant to Metacritic. At worst, I already have some problems with aggregators in general that are outside the scope of this discussion, and I'm in a minority of editors who would support removing Metacritic rankings too. For OpenCritic specifically, I do see problems with combining multiple platforms into the same aggregated ranking, and I'd like to see it rise in acceptance in other reliable sources before we consider it reliable. I'm mindful that Wikipedia is one of the biggest sites in the world and I'm very hesitant to give them the privilege of representing what all sources are saying, per WP:DUE. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the redundancy argument, as Metacritic's score and OpenCritic's percentage provide wholly separate (but equally useful) information. They work alongside each other, instead of providing the exact same information (as GameRankings did). Your other concerns are understandable, though. – Rhain ☔ 01:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be open minded, I think "% recommended" is an interesting metric, and provides something Metacritic doesn't have. But I wouldn't be confident that the metric or the source are more reliable than Metacritic (which already has problems). I'm not sure how much it is because I'm seeing games on there that are "100% recommended", but that doesn't small fact doesn't give me a lot of confidence at the moment. If it's helpful, I think we should be open to revisiting this conversation in 6 months to a year. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're interested, OpenCritic does disclose how it gets its numbers. Publications have the ability to tell them what number and above is a recommendation, and which aren't: For numeric reviews written by top critics, publications may elect to set their own threshhold for what is and isn't recommended. OpenCritic can also assess written articles based on whether the critic outright recommends the game: A critic specified they would recommend the game to general gamers over other games releasing at a similar time when uploading their review metadata to OpenCritic's content management system. The more I think about this system, the more I like it. Their transparency really works for me; their %Rec is so much improved over Metacritic's numbers (which still, I think, don't really mean anything to readers other than either 1) comparing it to other games they like, or 2) "how close to 100 is it/far away from 50 is it? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, RE: "rise in acceptance in other RS", it seems to have a decent amount of support already. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the % recommended only. It seems objective and non-controversial for their role as an aggregator, and a quick short hand to see which way the sources were generally pointing. It's fulfilling a different role from Metacritic. Jontesta (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: OpenCritic (right now) should not be included. This is because OpenCritic only has scores for games released since 2014 (or so). The proposed formula would not see usage on the vast amount of articles on games released prior to 2014. Rotten Tomatoes works for movies because it has scores dating back decades, as does MetaCritic (GameRankings had gone even further back). Maybe in another few decades, once OpenCritic has a larger database of scores to be historically significant, then it should be included. As it stands, it would only benefit the newest games, which is a small timeframe compared to the overall content on Wikipedia; thus, if there's gonna be a drastic universal change (like adding OpenCritic), then the change needs to somehow benefit the majority of the articles. Xanarki (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xanarki: This argument seems incredibly weak to me. Even if this proposal was suggesting a "drastic universal change" (I don't think it is), why does it need to "benefit the majority of ... articles"? Even if it only benefited a handful of articles, it's still worth implementing—we don't need to improve every article on Wikipedia before writing new ones, for example. To me, that's like saying that we shouldn't consider reviews from, say, USgamer in {{Video game reviews}} since they've only been around since 2013. If it improves the site, it's worth including, whether it's 20 articles or 20,000. – Rhain ☔ 08:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your example of a USgamer would be a lesser secondary publication, as opposed to the more significant primary publication like MetaCritic and OpenCritic, so that's why the fluidity would be acceptable for that.
This view is more opinionated on my part, but, I'm looking at the broader scope historically. If OpenCritic is only benefiting a certain small portion of the articles (2014-present), then it is also simultaneously hurting the articles it's not on. If something is gonna be hand-in-hand with MetaCritic (for games) as you've mentioned, then it should at least follow MetaCritic into the majority of its existence. Eventually, one may question the necessity of one or the other. I understand wanting to flesh out the 2014-present games' reception by supplementing MetaCritic, but I personally wish the supplement's measuring stick was at least half as long historically. I apologize if I didn't elaborate correctly. Xanarki (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly short-sighted position to stake out. You're essentially saying that Metacritic is the only aggregator for video games for the rest of all time because it has the longest history and no new aggregators can compare because their history doesn't reach as far back as Metacritic. No one is suggesting replace Metacritic. OC is being offered as a useful supplement where applicable. Also, for what it's worth, there's evidence that the vast majority of all video games ever released have been released in the past 5-6 years. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceedingly Weak Support I still have concerns. I'm not at all happy with the history of these discussions, dating back over 5 years now, which have repeatedly been pushed by SPAs or owners of the site itself. This is probably first discussion we've had where an experienced project member has made arguments for inclusion without any evidence of communication with COI editors. I don't like that they don't differentiate between platforms, especially. But I do believe, five years in, we're at a critical mass where OC is unlikely to disappear overnight (Barring some undisclosed financial straits). Some of our reliable sources, such as siliconera.com, outright link OpenCritic on every game detail page. EGS has integrated it. However... Our Reliable Source search, once you filter out Metacritic and Siliconera, has exceedingly few hits that mention OpenCritic. These primarily deal with it's launch, it's early accusation that Metacritic was consuming some of its data, and it's response to lootboxes a few years ago. There's a bare handful of sources about EGS integration, recent issues around Cyberpunk and one mentioning the terrible WWE 2K20 as well, but there's only two pages of results in total. Going outside the custom searches, which does miss sometimes, I found that PCGamesN sometimes does "score round ups" that mention both OC and MC together. Of course, several unreliable sources mention it, but we wouldn't use them for evaluation. I really wish there was more evidence that sources are regularly caring about OpenCritic's actions or impact on the industry. For example, we regularly hear of developer bonuses being tied to MC scores, but I've never heard of anything similar tied to OC. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that they don't differentiate between platforms This argument has been made a few times and I'm not sure I understand. Most sources don't score games differently per platform anymore, so it makes sense that review aggregators don't either. The only sources that give platform independent scores are platform-specific sources in the first place. I'm actually surprised that MC still splits scores by platform. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so it makes sense that review aggregators don't either Except.... MC does and GR did. And often times there's quite a difference in the scores, especially with dealing with ports to handhelds or last generation systems. In particular we still see quite a bit of swing between PC and consoles (even "current gen"), depending on whether the consoles are suffering extra issues or the console port to PC was handled poorly. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've always been a bit suspect about the way Metacritic categorizes its platform specific reviews. I just opened up the page for Hitman 3 because it's on the front page of Metacritic Games and it lists IGN's review (which specifically mentions they reviewed the PS4/5 version) under PC reviews for example. I don't know what their error rate is on this stuff. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Metacritic is always getting it right, or publications submit their reviews for the right platforms or not, is another topic. I personally prefer to see platform distinction where such reviews exist. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested this discussion for closure. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support primarily to cite an alternative aggregator score to Metacritic's 1-100. Both aggregators have its issues, perhaps OC more more as highlighted by the recent questionable editorial opinion on that one game's aggregator page. It appears OC has managed to keep their aggregator relevant over the past 5 years, so it doesn't look like comments about WP inclusion are going away. Regarding separate scores per platform, with multi-platform they should generally be very similar, although there could be exceptions where citing separate scores is useful. (Unsure if I am eligible to vote since I am not a member of the project and I might be too late) IgelRM (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting closure. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With ten supports and seven opposed, I think this is the closest we've come to adding OpenCritic, and, regardless of the outcome, I believe there have been good points raised on both sides. I think there's a pretty strong consensus that OpenCritic's percentage recommended score is a better statistic than its weighted average (which is usually identical to Metacritic), though not everyone is convinced that it's worth including as of yet. I definitely think that, if a discussion about OpenCritic ever comes up again, this is the way to go; its percentage is a companion to Metacritic's score, just as Rotten Tomatoes is on film and television articles. – Rhain ☔ 00:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remasters vs Remakes (Activision Edition)

Even though the terms "remaster" and "remake" have their distinctions, the video game industry still chooses to make it confusing and I think the main confusion I've noticed has been with Activision. All of their recent remakes have been advertised as "Remasters" including Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy, Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled, Spyro Reignited Trilogy, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 + 2. There are some sources that accurately call these game collections remakes and not remasters, but they're not the majority and it's because of that reason, it appears the articles all have the same erroneous label. How should we handle situations like this? Should we create a new guideline related to this confusion?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow what reliable sources say, regardless of what the publisher or devs say if this differs. It reminds me of one of the MOBA titles that wanted to be known by a very different name for the genre, but we stuck with MOBA as no one called it the publisher's version (though we did document that term by the publisher). same can be done here if the rationale that Activision uses "remaster" for these is discussed. --Masem (t) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Well i do want to discuss the rationale for Activision titles. Based on your example, perhaps the most ideal solution is label them as remakes but add a footnote that they're advertized as remasters?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know reliable sources are a good standard to keep out the most glaring errors but even reliable sources are often getting this wrong. Also for your consideration Diablo II: Resurrected was just created and I'm curious what it takes for this to be its own article versus a section in the Diablo IIO article. Archrogue (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I see it get very confused is with Activision remakes. it could be beneficial, to have a video game remaster article so it can be very clear. As much as reliable sources are getting it wrong, it could be WP:WIKIVOICE to pass off these obvious errors as factual.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any PC Accelerator review on Pro 18 World Tour Golf

I have a problem. The GameRankings link for Pro 18 World Tour Golf claimed to have a PC Accelerator magazine score of "6 out of 10". But I've searched through all of the magazine's 1999 issues and I can't find anything that has the review on the game (save for one in the "1999 Year in Reviews" on this link). Did GameRankings lie to us? Is there no PC Accelerator magazine issue that has any real review on the game? Can you please find it? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Angeldeb82: It's in issue 7, cover date March 1999, page 98.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I finally found it myself a few days ago, but thanks anyway. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switch pro officially deconfirmed

The nintendo switch should be listed as a 9th generation console. DesuDemon (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? Sergecross73 msg me 04:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about the fact today's Nintendo Direct did not contain news about a rumoured Switch Pro. Which is, of course, completely different from an "official deconfirmation" and also does not mean that news sources will suddenly start labelling the Switch as a 9th generation console. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A console can be 8th gen and still compete directly with 9th gen consoles...ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get political or anything, but as the Switch is doing right now, in my opinion. Panini🥪 10:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solution that works right now until we have more data points in the 9th gen is how I wrote the Switch into the 9th gen - its mentioned, but not alongside the PS5/XBXS as Nintendo's off on its blue ocean tour. In six months we may have more to know. --Masem (t) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no BEN. President Shuntaro Furakawa himself released an official statement thatvthe company has no plans to make a rumored "switch pro" and expects the life of the normal Switch to extend for another 4 years. A gen 8 console competing with gen 9 consoles makes no sense? Its misinformation at this point... DesuDemon (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it's "misinformation at this point", all I'm understanding is that the Switch, introduced as an 8th generation console, remains out in the wild at the same time as 9th generation consoles are being developed for. Which, as I understand, is how the Home video game console article is approaching it. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it. It doesn't become 9th gen simply because it continues to be developed for contemporaneous with 9th gen consoles, despite it being introduced earlier. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How was it introduced as an 8th gen console? Current generation is what the article says how is the Ps5 and XBSX in current gen, however the current gen Nintendo console is not? You yourself do not get to pick and choose what you want as a generation. Not a single time in Video Gaming History has a brand released 2 seperate consoles in a single generation. Why would the Wii U and Switch be the exception it does not make sense. DesuDemon (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "generations" are based on economics, not the technology, when you look at sources. Which consoles competed against each other. This has normally always been in line with the advancements of the next iteration of each manufacturer's own consoles, but not always (Atari 5200/7200, and Nintendo skipped the 32-bit generation for example). Both the Wii U and Switch have been seen to compete with Xbox One + PS4, so hence they are both considered 8th gen. Switch may also compete with PS5/XSXS so it may also be 9th gen. --Masem (t) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again!

Here is a previous discussion on the matter. I don't want to read the whole thing to give my own insight, so take this as you will. Panini🥪 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however the Atari 5200/7800* are basically the same as far as hardware is considered. The Wii U and Switch obviously are radically differing. I disagree with generations being decided by economics, it has some role to play, however the deciding factor of a generation is it's chronological order. It is the very definition of generations. DesuDemon (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are extremely late to the party, this was being discussed for months, and we've already come to as good of a consensus as we can with the current reliable sourcing on the matter. Consensus can change... but you're really struggling to put together a coherent argument on some of these points. I don't see it being very persuasive so far. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Frank Klepacki for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous video game character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Miscellaneous video game character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need an RS

Looking for an RS with a brief definition of "consolitis" or "console-itis". Doesn't have to go in depth. Just looking for evidence that the term exists and its (very) basic meaning. The best I can find is this but it just looks like some dude's blog. ➧datumizer  ☎  06:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Datumizer, There's a mention here on ArsTechnica, a reliable source. I also found it being noted here on Shacknews. Panini🥪 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (February 15 to February 21)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

February 21

Looking for suggesting on a parent article

With news about Take Two taking down the GTA III fan reverse engineering, I was looking to see what we have in terms of fan-made recreations, and basically seems that we have the follow articles:

And possibly a few others. Note that I'm specifically looking at the recreation or near recreation of an existing game (eg would fall into the nature of a video game clone for all purposes), rather than a wholly unique game inspired by existing titles. I'm looking for some way to have a parent article that talks broadly on fan recreations of video games that would cover all these as to broadly add sections related to legal concepts and challenges, but I don't know if there's a nice clean name for all that. ("Fangame" doesn't quite cover the engine recreations aspect). --Masem (t) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, AM2R would fall under that category. The article uses "unofficial remake" which links to Fangame. I would say use that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fangame would cover AM2R, as well as things like Black Mesa but would not properly cover things like ScummVM. That's why there's a higher term that we should have to cover fan-made efforts related to video games. --Masem (t) 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an answer, but you may want to consider including Homebrew (video games) and Doujin soft within this umbrella. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are even a bit different, as that's getting more towards indie games, but I'd agree they are closely related. --Masem (t) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article exist at a phrase rather than a single word, like at Fan recreations in video gaming or something? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A VG gameography infobox template?

The infobox artist discography template summarizes the number of studio albums, compilations, EPs, and other types of albums into one infobox. Would it be beneficial to have a "Gameography" for long-term video game series? The possible items that come to mind are Mainline title, Spin-off games, Spin-off series, Subseries, Remakes, Remasters, Collections. Or we can have customizable items too. What are your thoughts?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template could potentially be beneficial to the following articles: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, Super Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Legend of Zelda, and Resident Evil.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike artists where this is more common, we don't have that much in video games that I can see this being useful, in addition to starting "wars" over what is what (main vs spin-off, remake vs remaster). However I would support a "Number of titles" entry in {{Infobox video game series}} template as long as we have a strong definition of what is included in that count to avoid artificial inflation. --Masem (t) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be a problem if remakes and remasters are in the same category. for the main game and spin-off, I can understand that can be difficult. I personally think it would be a good idea to have a customizable template. I personally still think it's beneficial to see the ratio of this variety. But I suppose a number of titles in the main infobox could be just as good too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe only list the games that have been documented in the article or list of video games article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd have some people adding in non-notable games and cameos to inflate the number. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define what you consider non-notable games that you believe shouldn't be included in the count? For cameos, we can easily monitor that. It's still useful information to have on articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Pumpkin Pie, people counting games like Super Smash Bros. as a Mario title, for example. For a franchise as large as that, how exactly would we settle on a single number that won't be prone to edit warring over a long period of time? I like the suggestion but I can't see this working very well in practice for larger franchises. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose such an idea, since we will surely have a flood of editors trying to balloon that number up with cameos, compilations, etc. that obviously don't count as new releases. Namcokid47 16:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't understand opposing a good idea because for the sole reason that bad editors exist. We have similar titles such as release timeline. If we go with Masem's idea to only have a number of titles, I think would be too difficult to keep track of larger series such as Mario and Final Fantasy that range over 50 titles. And if an editor with bad-faith wants to inflate the number with cameos, I think the total number of games in the main infobox would be harder to monitor. If the gameography template I propose exists, it's easier to monitor we can just notate in the documentation "do not include cameos". I personally think this type of information is not only preferential but vital to give readers a clear understanding of a series. But I rather not beat a dead horse here. It's clear no one wants to support this, so I'll leave it be. maybe I'll propose it in a year or two.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the potential for abuse isn't a valid opposition here. By that argument, we should remove the release date field from Infobox video game, because unseasoned and bad faith editors love to edit war over that, and the disinformation presented as a result is more serious than a video game count including compilations. What keeps me on the fence is Masem's first objection: I don't think there are that many articles where such a template could be useful.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martin IIIa, release dates aren't subjective like a total count of games within a larger franchise would be. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So even if the game count becomes a subject of edit warring, in all likelihood it will always at least be correct from a certain point of view.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin IIIa:, a good list i can find is based on List of best-selling video game franchises can be a good example. I can think of at least 20 franchises that can be useful. It doesn't have to be a big franchise with over 50 titles. If it has a form of spin-offs or subseries, the gameography template can be useful.
@Dissident93: I'm open to discussing your views on this. You mentioned earlier about non-notable games and you are talking about a subjective count which I would be happy to get a more clear understanding of your point of view. What makes the count subjective and what do non-notable games have to do with the total count?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Pumpkin Pie, let's start off by answering exactly how many Mario games have been released. And with that number, did you include confirmed upcoming games, guest appearances, compilations, remakes, sub-franchises such as Mario vs Donkey Kong, and/or more obscure non-canon games such as Hotel Mario? Like I said above, I don't disagree in theory, but this just seems like something that would consistently be up for debate unless we can find a solid number that multiple sources also agree with, which I doubt. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat as some editors; qualifiers such as spin-off, mainline, remake, remaster, aren't always cut and dry. Super Mario constantly has editors arguing over what games qualify as the mainline games even if there are reliable sources. Sometimes the primary source (e.g. Nintendo) will flip-flop over what was considered "canon," which makes tracking these kind of things daunting. The other thing is that, for small series like Zero Escape that only have a few games, this template would be a bit useless, with only one field "mainline" to fill in. It also opens the door to other WP:OTHERSTUFF-based arguments when editors try to shoehorn the template into such smaller articles, and then try to justify its inclusion by adding data to bloat the size, such as counting unrelated games as spin-offs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: for Mario i haven't counted the games just yet. But i won't say impossible. Any games upcoming releases should obviously not be included per WP:CRYSTAL. Guest appearances are just the same as cameos and I already addressed that we can include a clause in the documentation of the template to not include them if it were ever to be brought up. But remakes/remasters, collections, subseries, spinoffs are on the table. Even so-called "non-canon" games like Hotel Mario and educational mario games are indeed worth including and informative to readers. And we should also include games that dont have an article but there existence is verified and notated. It would be too subjective to consider them unrelated. The total of games doesn't correlate to how many are canon after all.

The goal of the gameography template also isn't to identify the total of games of a series, that was Masem's idea (but I don't oppose it either). My goal with the gameography template is to help readers have a clearer idea on the scope of those larger series similar to how discography templates do es. We're also ignoring a key component to the idea: creating customizable parameters if main series/spin offs is just too restricting or debatable.

Lastly if we're concerned with some editor arbitrarily changing the total count in the gameography template, we could customize the template to calculate the total count based on what each parameter reflects, if possible. That would make it more of an objective count and wouldn't be disputable. If thats not possible, we just don't include it as part of the template.


@ThomasO1989: i already addressed that this is designed for bigger series only. that doesn't mean the inclusion of such template shouldn't exist. And I haven't seen any editors attempt to shoehorn a template before with video game related articles. i once again disagree with the notion that we should be against a template because bad editors exist. The templates documentation should notate when it should be used. So that at least if someone does choose to add the template for a smaller/simpler series, reverting it would be as simple as referring to the its usage guide.

If you're still concerned, we can support both my idea and masem's idea at the same time. For simpler series it can still be beneficial to have a total games parameter in the main infobox. I doubt inexperienced editors will edit-war over the template's inclusion if there's another area to reflect it.

As for Nintendo flip-flopping on what is mainline and what isn't. We also take advantage of customizable parameters, we don't have to use mainline/spinoff with Mario. We can follow similar to how the navbox chooses to organize it. For Mario as an example,it can be organized with the following parameters: Super Mario, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario Sports, Educational, RPG, Subseries and Spin-offs for any that don't fit the previous categories.

I genuinely believe that if template is created, it will be easily proven how vital it is for it to be used.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pumpkin Pie, the total number or spread out by type (main, spinoff, remake, compilation) have the same exact problem, you're just splitting them apart instead of adding them together. And my argument against this isn't just because of bad editors (although you can't deny it would be to some extinct). I can only see this being an infinitely contested issue (even all in good faith) that has to be settled by us editors for nearly every large franchise like a Mario or Zelda or Final Fantasy, since I don't think you're going to get a cited stable number from any reliable source(s). I also don't see much of a point to just counting linked games within a template as it would not be all-encompassing (isn't that the whole point to this) and any reader can do that on their own already anyway. As for simply listing sub-series and not any numerical count, the infobox already has the spinoff parameter we can use, unless I'm misunderstanding. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: Although i acknowledge that the usage of the template is bound to be discussed, I don't believe that outweighs its usefulness. There are still assumptions being made here. Trying to quantify all of the games into a single number arbitrarily first vs trying to find the key categories and quantifying those within the category are two completely different scenarios and methods. The goal of the template again isn't to find a grand total of games. The goal is again, to give readers a scope of how each video game series is organized. FF for example has 15 mainline titles and over 40 spin-offs that are part of over 5 subseries and some stand-alone. That information isn't exactly easy to see in the Final Fantasy article.
Second, if you're familiar with the template:infobox artist discography's usage, you will see that there is rarely a need to verify a number of singles. So long as each game included in the count is verified, we don't have to worry about original research.
Third, the goal is that it's all-encompassing. Games without articles will also be included so long as they are verified and notated. For example, if hypothetically there is a Mario video game out there called "Mario X" and it's not notable to have its own article, but it's verified in the series, we can add that in. I believe this emphasizes coverage, not subjective count.
Of course for a bigger series like "Final Fantasy" and "Mario", those particular series need some consensus on how to organize it. And those are indeed worthy topics to discuss on how to organize it. But outside of Final Fantasy and Mario, the rest feel pretty easy to quantify. Would it be better if I showed you an example on Mario and Final Fantasy first before denying it for others. Would you be willing to see an example?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video game sales in the 1980s and 1990s

I gotta be honest, we need to find print sources from the 1980s and 1990s that include information about video games' commercial performances at those periods. Sales info of old games are rare and always come from retrospective sources about the most notable games; even articles like Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario World, and Donkey Kong Country depend mostly on retrospective sources for a comically little amount of info and analysis on the commercial performance. We've found way more of this kind of stuff for films, music and television (there's even online databases for charts and box office numbers of older music), so I'd really like someone to find old-school print publications that specialized in that.

P.S. I'd like to know where I can find archives for 20th century Japanese print sources of video games released in that era (apart from Famitsu). Thanks HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CESA white paper should have sales numbers breakdowns, IIRC. JOEBRO64 03:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... CESA... what? Link, please? HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, I looked it up. Also, I wasn't just talking about sales in Japan, but Europe and North America as well. HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wii FARC

FYI, the Wii article is now at FARC here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many gameplay images should a series article have?

A discussion has been brought up in talk:Paper Mario regarding too many images and it also brought up Super Smash Bros.. Maybe it can be discussed here. Paper Mario and Super Smash Bros have over five NFCC images, most of them being gameplay of each game. What are your thoughts? Do these articles require that many NFCC contents get their point across?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pumpkin Pie, the fewer non-free use images an article uses, the better. However I'd say they should be limited to three max (including the logo perhaps), as any more just looks like it has no regard towards the entire policy. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Dissident93 as it right for the policy point. Speaking from another angle, I think for Gameplay, you should really only use one for the most common or recognisable gameplay type. I've had articles which required multiple images (Persona (series), Sakura Wars), but I treat those as special cases/exceptions to a general rule due to wildly-different mechanics needing to be displayed in some form. Certainly for the samples you mention, having one image per game mentioned is going too far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "had one image for every game" part was not true, but two of which have since been removed. Panini🥪 00:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Super Smash Bros. how comfortable is everyone just having a single gameplay image to reflect the series?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me to just use the one image. If those five images were illustrating important differences between the gameplay of the various installments, it's not at all clear to me from looking at them.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take on/On Helicopters (title conventions)

Please have a look at Talk:Take On Helicopters#Title conventions. Thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izuru vs Hajime

I recently created the article for Danganronpa character Hajime Hinata. To make it short, he has an alter-ego named Izuru Kamukura who debuted in Danganronpa before Hajime debuted properly. As a result a user moved the article's title to Izuru. A fellow user proposed a move to Hajime at Talk:Izuru Kamukura#Izuru and Hajime in regards to a proper move. You are welcome to talk there.Tintor2 (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said on my talk page: There just was an AfD on Hajime last month, and I wonder if this one really has addressed the GNG concerns (one thing we noted was that Hajime p much only seems to be covered in reviews of games/anime) tbh.--AlexandraIDV 04:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has three paragraphs of reception with most of them focused on how he received in the games, popularity within his own actors and big overview in his anime role. The old article from January was rushed and had no such content. The same goes for the creation section. I'm pretty sure the article passes wp:notabilty without the old articles' usage of repeating top tens for old articles.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I took a look at the article yesterday because I'm a (talk page stalker), and I struggled to give any input because I found the article to be quite convoluted and confusing to read. And this is coming from someone who played the Danganronpa games too, albeit years ago. Even if the GNG is met (unclear if it is)...it's a difficult read. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with the notability? If you find it confusing, you can simply tag it. Most of the information was rewritten by another user to expand appearances. The reception section has more coverage than the actual Street Fighter characters which is why I found the direct merge too forced as such move only focused on what happened in January when I wasn't even editing Wikipedia due to a break.Tintor2 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're confusing two separate discussion points? I was agreeing with Alexandra that the notability was unclear. To recap the discussion in relation to you: You appeared to be asking for input on the article title. My response was that the article was so confusingly written that I really don't know either way. My point was merely, after an initial read through, I have no idea what the article should be titled or if it should exist. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the GNG argument, any name change should fit WP:COMMONNAME. As Hajime is the focus/protagonist of an entire game, I'd be surprised if he wasn't the primary topic here. We don't really judge this based on when a character appears in a series. I've only played the games, so when did Izuru appear first? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Izuru's name first appeared in a prequel light novel from 2011. Hajime appeared in the 2012 game. Still as soon as I revised the article's weird in-universe info and requested a copyedit from the guild, a person deleted it....Tintor2 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and undo the redirect on their part: they're going with a guideline that's against recreating articles after they've just been nuked, but it makes little sense for that to affect someone being able to do a fresh take on the subject as long as there's enough content and material to satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so do we need to start up 2 discussions, better defined, related to notability and article title then? I don't feel like this discussion was really framed to go anywhere as is. We're not going to get anywhere with a simple "Whatcha think guys?" discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is being discussed at DRV already, edit warring on the redirect feels off, and may fuel sentiment to salting. Let's be clear: AFD was barely over a month ago. The question of GNG was essentially settled at that time.. WP:N is not about content. Rewriting an article will never make it gain WP:N. Now, finding new sources and new developments may change the GNG picture, but "It was rewritten" won't. And in a mere month, new development of notability for this character is almost certainly not the case. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E3 2021

I'm starting to see edits related to E3 2021 possibly cancelled, and reports in multiple sources seem to say this is from the Convention Commission of the City of Los Angeles (Board of Los Angeles Convention and Tourism Development Commission). Is there a chance we should revert such edits on the associated article as well as all relevant edits until we know more? Jalen Folf (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenFolf, I thought sources made it clear that only the live event at the Convention Center has been cancelled? There is still supposed to be a virtual event unlike last year as far as I know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source I’ve just look at specifically mentioned the live event being cancelled.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game Boy line splitting

I believe that there should be a separate template for the Game Boy Advance line. Grouping them makes little sense and is somewhat confusing, since both Template:Nintendo DS and Template:Nintendo 3DS are already separate. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1009565793"