Talk:Let's Play

May 2012

Why does this page not mention Slowbeef, the one who invented Let's Plays? Or better yet, the YouTube channel Retsupurae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.52.32 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody has added it yet supported by reliable secondary references, especially for claims such as "invented Let's Plays". The YouTube channel would be a primary reference. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

While he was one of the first Let's Players, Slowbeef didn't invent Let's Plays. His earliest LP on the archive was started November 3, 2006. The earliest LP on the archive is Final Fantasy VI by Tuckfard — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGN001 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Slowbeef himself doesn't claim to have invented it, only that he was one of the first people to use the commentary over videos format which is now standard. The earliest LPs were either screenshots, or mixed media (screenshots with occasional videos, often without voiced commentary). --86.160.43.229 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, this needs a reliable, secondary reference. Especially, if he is one of the several, because we need to establish why he in particular should be mentioned and not others. Which, again, is determined by independent sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm obviously not an independent resource, but this is verifiable on the Something Awful forums, if you have Archive Access. Even if I'm omitted from it, the trend absolutely didn't start on YouTube, and SA deserves the credit. I can't find the "First" Let's Play (which is allegedly, Oregon Trail, done by an unknown member of the forums), but the first "video LP" is here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2261297&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=2. Since Archives access costs money, this is a screenshot I've uploaded: http://imgur.com/HxCJb - The date of posting is Jan 5, 2007 - there shouldn't be any earlier ones. The URL linked in the screenshot is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA1kIBwGhrk&feature=gv - please note this was originally hosted on Google Video, which is since defunct and is now pointing at the original video's YouTube migration. Anyway, I get credit for "inventing" them in general (including screenshot ones) since I wrote a humorous "strategy guide" in 2004 which some people liken to to Let's Play, but I have no idea if that would have predated Oregon Trail or if it "counts" as a Let's Play. In either case, I didn't coin the term. Is this helpful? Slowbeef (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The MackNMesh video is not considered a Let's Play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Why

Where is a description of "Why people make/view LPs"?

Don't need a massive description, but a little depth would serve the non-gamer readers of this page.

e.g: "People make them to entertain/for the money/ad revenue and watch them to be entertained (and likely because the game is of mild interest to the viewer, making any spoilers a non-issue). Often the games lacking in quality make for comedy gold with the better LP hosts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.127.25 (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources (such as these) to back up such section and all similar to above statements, otherwise it will be original research and unsuitable for inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Stated on the Rooster Teeth podcast (multiple times), Geoff Ramsey came up with the term after using "Live Commentary" for the longest time. Other threads then started using it after the first "Let's Play" usage. Video64Games (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Stated by whom? Can you link to or cite the actual podcasts and times, with participating parties mentioned? Geoff Ramsey is part of Rooster Teeth himself, so the podcast most likely cannot be used to support this (see WP:PRIMARY, we need secondary sources). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gavin and Jack mentioned it very quickly in... I think Podcast 210. They said that they called it "live commentary" and then "Let's Play" after a livestream. Video64Games (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

SA info removed

The citation for this statement is a site created by someone from the SA site. Of course they want to say they created it. It's a rather self-serving citation, and a cursory google search turns up this [1] forum from 2005 which suspiciously looks like a Let's Play to me. Either way, for that kind of claim, some independent verification should be required.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this looks "suspiciously" like a Let's Play to you? http://web.archive.org/web/20120117203947/http://slowbeef.com/MG2 Jan. 2004. Either way, SA coined the term, and started the trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.141.171 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed some stuff

Removed Smosh and Toby because they are just in it to make money, and have crap LP's anyway. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.232 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a reason to remove them (And the fact they are in it for the money supports the copyright issues described afterwards). And no, we're not here to rate on quality of LPs. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's Plays not actually called "Let Us Play"

Adding citation needed to the claim that Let's Plays were at one point called Let Us Plays. I believe whoever wrote this got it from the Slowbeef post in references, but if so it's a misunderstanding of that source. Slowbeef is making a distinction between (older) interactive let's plays where viewers influenced the gameplay and (newer) non-interactive let's plays where viewers have little influence on gameplay and instead watch. He does not mean (or say) that early let's plays were literally named "Let Us Play <game title>" or that let's plays have ever been popularly called "let us plays."

Xxiggy (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "Let's Plays"

We need to be clear here: there is the idea of screenshot gallerys/videos that are specifically called "Let's Plays" - that term and approach came from Something Awful. It should be clear that before SA did "Let's Plays" there were people recording themselves playing games and just posting videos (even before the claimed Mack & Mesh), but they were not called "Let's Plays" or necessary had the elements of what Let's Play videos (namely commentary alongside gameplay). It's just that the format jelled with the SA forums, and that's what we can source. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided a book source that affirms Let's Plays came out of SA, even if there were similar videos before that point. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note for those trying to include the Mack and Mesh video as the first , you need a source that says it was first. You can't just link to the video and claim it was first, because that's original research. You also need to find a source that is counter to the current understanding that Lets Plays started at SA. I had put langauge that acknowledged that there were other similar things before SA's Lets Play, but the actual formalization of the concept is clearly from SA. Also note that these edits scream of conflict-of-interest here without other source backing. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are correct, the M_wikifacts sources are not. They are blogs/forums and primary sources, without any secondary sources being brought up. So no reliable sources at all. Not to mention that its WP:OR, it does not matter how evident something is. We still need secondary sources. NathanWubs (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This shows the 'Mesh Does' series - from a legitimate, reputable source - in a still downloadable form clearly dated 30th September 2004 (http://www.gamefront.com/files/3648231/Mesh_Does_Doom_Videos). I have double checked that this download still works, the vids are in a .zip file and vid4.wmv at the 1m52s shows a 'facecam' on the top left-hand of the screen and the gameplay making up the rest of the screen. The criteria that appears to have been decided - commentary besides gameplay - is entirely met if you are to follow that link, download the zip file containing the videos and watch the said videos. It looks the EXACT same as many of 'Let's Play' videos even today. I do not see how this can be argued. The first couple of 'Mesh Does' videos were just reactions, but from the fourth video onwards, there is clearly commentary over gameplay in a picture-in-picture format. The 'Mesh Does' video fits this criteria. The SA videos are, very clearly, not the first examples of the format. They are merely the first example of the name being applied to the format. That, of course, should be cited; but, I also see no reason for the 'Mesh does'/Mack and Mesh series to be erased from the page since it appears to be the earliest example of this format in action.

Some more examples of posts regarding 'Mesh Does' clearly dated 2004:

NSFW website due to some advertising sidebars!!>>> http://muchosucko.com/3659/Mesh-Does-Doom (Full video, dated 2004, in action under the 'Mesh Does' banner if you skip the first couple of minutes. The uploader is notably 'Yak', the owner of aforementioned NSFW website and also an infamous 4chan board member)

http://www.fileplanet.com/144660/140000/fileinfo/Mesh-Does-DOOM-3-Video-Pack- (These 3 videos can, arguably, be discounted from the 'Let's Play' format as it is just footage of Mesh spliced together with footage of him filmed from a shakeycam - yet they are important in the context. The above video is the next in the series, chronologically, and very clearly shows it is from the same timeframe and is the same person)

http://forums.pcformat.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6701 (Mentions how one of the 'Mesh does' videos was on a PC Gamer magazine disc - I'm sure this can be tracked down for further evidence should this not be enough)

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?26932-Doom-III-Re-actions

http://hlfallout.net/topic/22747-mesh-does-hl2/ (Talking about 'Mesh does' Half-Life 2 which also followed the 'Mesh does' Doom III series in 2004)

http://www.neskimoforums.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1736

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/212599

http://www.valvetime.net/threads/mesh-does-ravenholm.58839/

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21828

Lastly, from the Wikipedia page: A Let's Play (often abbreviated to "LP") is a series of screenshots or a recorded video documenting a playthrough of a video game, usually including commentary by the gamer.[1] An LP differs from a walkthrough or strategy guide by focusing on an individual's subjective experience with the game, often with humorous, irreverent, or even critical commentary from the gamer, rather than being an objective source of information on how to progress through the game

1) The video is recorded - gameplay and reactions together on screen simultaneously

2) It documents a playthrough of a video game

3) It includes commentary from Mesh

4) Subjective experience (indeed, rather than commenting on the graphics he is struggling to get back into his own skin after every fright)

5) Humorous (Very, if we are to go on the above links to forum posts)

6) Irreverent ("There you are...come on... shut up" when shooting a monster)

7) Critical ("Carmack I hate you" in reference to former Id Software programmer John Carmack)

8) Features no tips on how to get through the game; in fact, it turns out being rather the opposite

The criteria has been, very clearly, met. I do not see how there is any dispute here. (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, particularly compared to the sources that identify Something Awful as the origin of Lets Plays. No one is doubting that there may have been videos, like this Mack and Mesh one, that were basically what "Let's Plays" became, but the popularity of them came from SA and that's the only way we can attribute them. In terms of the sources you give, we can't use forum posts or file planet-style download links.

I will say that I don't also think we need to spell out exactly the posts that started in on SA. That said, we can point to LPArachive's history page, after we have assertained by other sources that SA's LP is the origin source, to source a few history things. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Masem is right that the only way to really solve this issue is through reliable sources. If reliable sources identify the "Mesh does" videos as the first of the LP style then they should certainly be included. But mere links to the videos or links from unreliable sources do not prove this despite the very early date of the video. For all we know (on our own without reliable sources) there may have been videos made in this style on VHS in the 1990s. Perhaps "Mesh does" was late to the game. "Mesh does" might still be worth mentioning, but only if it is done so in a due manner. So that means that if it's an important video (like one discussed in a New York Times article or a Government publication or a book from a prominent author, etc) then it would be appropriate to discuss it in this article, but if it only is mentioned by random fans then they can't be considered credible historians and it would be undue to cover the video. For reference, a good list of reliable video-game-related sources can be found at WP:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my personal Consensus Statement/Argument which is the deciding factor towards my EDIT:

No one is stating that Let's Plays did not eventually come from the Something Awful website in 2006. It just isn't the first rendition of the fact being demonstrated, which is what the context of the entry was. What Something Awful had done was obviously something that occurred thereafter once Let's Plays became popularized. They worked to try and coin a term in formal context.

Masem, your obscure book source by the way, can be found here and it just references "Something Awful" in context on Page 62 along with the website LParchive.org that is the supposed archive of all Let's Plays, which is clearly not the case as obviously (and logically) there is more than one resource for information over time which has now been discovered, which makes this book erroneous, false by context, and can be seen as a promotional tool to promote the website and company "Something Awful" if it is used to demonstrate origin in creation-based context as opposed to contribution.

Nathan, as for you stating that the sources are correct for Masem, well they are, but only in retrospect to "Something Awful" being a contributor and NOT an originator. This specific information can be added thereafter in another section or within the same section under alternative context, not in relation to an 'originator', but in context to a 'contributor'. This is what your entries lack in definitive detail.

As for constantly reverting the entry before a consensus is formally reached, that is an abuse of policy. A revised posting remains until consensus and amalgamation of both the old and new revised data have been formally agreed upon in the Talk Section. There is no one sole version, as the correct version, for historical context. There must be an emergence of both pieces of data in their context to appease both parties, and the facts need to be established, within not only the entry, but within the data itself. In Masem's own words, this abuse of policy is a 'conflict of interest'.

Nathan, as for yourself stating "They are blogs/forums and primary sources, without any secondary sources being brought up". Well this clearly not the case. Within the German Forum website referencing the Mesh Does Series, it in itself is a secondary source when the metadata is listed within the webpage once clicked upon, but obviously, not being in a formal locked state such that as a book which, we both would agree would make it Secondary. Without clicking the sources within the forum postings, the entry is considered Primary.

Metadata is the acknowledgement of a time-stamp. Other website forums also acknowledge this with their own variation of metadata towards these two individuals, but their metadata is listed in another format which can be seen here. These entries, in themselves, are forum entries. This, as it has been stated, is a Primary source, which everyone can agree upon. BUT the Secondary source that contains definitive metadata, that cannot be altered because it has been formally archived and locked by IGN is the FilePlanet Archive, which is a literal archive of data, similar to that of Google Books. The location of the metadata can be seen on Column 10 CSS line 14, which states "8/25/2004". This date is the deciding factor in regards to the facts specified in my entry, which allows all other Primary Sources to be established within context, as they are merely crediting the source of Origin on Column 10 CSS line 14, and in no way act as a Primary Source to be the deciding factor as you and others have specifically chosen to solely specify.

As for the argument of Origin, and the individual known as Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer. I placed him as second. This cannot be argued due to the lack of evidence, manipulation of evidence, and blog post date thereafter the above specified creation date which is supported by IGN and it's locked archived subsidiary FilePlanet. Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer's personal blog entry, which is highly contested as misleading and manipulative of information is in no way a contribution to fact which is what gives the website and LLC company 'Something Awful' the subversive notoriety they claim, which is only supported by a book entry, which was also created thereafter and in no way provides the notion of Origin towards them. In Section 5, titled "5. How I Get Credit for Inventing LP as a Whole", begins as such "It’s this. Starting August 25, 2004, I did a fully commented playthrough of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake for the MSX using screengrabs and HTML tables.". The date listed is the same IGN FilePlanet archived metadata date, and is seen as a manipulation of truths once a formal investigation of Facts is performed. The individual, Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer also provides a dead link to the data within their blog entry within the quote provided above. The actual date of entry is listed as "November 14 2014" which can be seen here via public archival retrieval. It also must be said that the blog posting, and information provided in this posting, are Primary in nature and cannot be used as a reference for any future data. Also, the blog post, the individual 'Michael "Slowbeef" Sawyer' 's personal dictated information, and the blog itself which already demonstrates a manipulation of data under two separate instances (misrepresentation of dates from a first-hand account, misleading links to data from within their own controlled resource) should not be considered as Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources in future Wikipedia entries, and should be considered an immediate reprisal of information until, and after a formal discussion of Consensus has taken place in the Talk Section of any future pages involving this individual.

Since my compilation of data does not contain any falsehoods, I will now go ahead and UNDO the actions that have taken place to remove the new data before a formal discussion of creation and consensus has taken place with the amalgamation of old and new data. Removal of the new data, and replacement of erroneous data as fact is against policy. A discussion and formal layout must take place if you stand by your erroneous data as sole fact. M wikifacts (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Using your so-called "metadata" is what Wikipedia calls synthesis - you are making a claim based on a bias approach to sources. Just because Mack and Mesh' video existed before the 2006 point in SA does not make it the origin. It is an earlier example of a "video game playthrough with commentary" but to the industry, the origin where the format solidified is SA. You need a reliable source that says otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted, and then you reverted someone again. I already explained on your talk page. That the moment that you were reverted you would have to go to the talk page to get consensus. You did not. You WP:EW that is abuse of policy and disruptive editing.You clearly do not have the consensus when multiply editors are against your WP:OR that is not backed up by reliable sources. If you just go ahead and place your information now in the article, you will once again go against consensus and will continue your WP:EW and at the same time your disruptive editing. So if you want to get what you suggested in the article, I suggest you get consensus first and come with reliable secondary sources. I also implore you to study wikipedia its policy about sourcing and that you click the WP:OR link that I have provided to understand that your approach is wrong. NathanWubs (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC) There is no evidence available that state 'Mack' or 'Mesh' are connected with 'Something Awful' as you state in the acronym 'SA'.

Secondly, the approach of using metadata is not "Synthesis" when the statement of metadata is literal in context and not adverse to itself when you observe the actual context of which it is used in regards to this instance; We are referring to 'History' - Dates need apply. By stating they are synthesis, that logic would only be factual toward argument if we were stating non-historical references in this section. Metadata has been used by libraries as a reference-to-fact for generations.

As for their compilation of original videos existing before 2006, they are observed, locked, and archived by IGN, and in fact does make it origin in reference-to-fact, whereas until someone else can find a more original resource with accompanying references to support their context, this should be the basis of historical reference because of the viral nature of the data, irrelevant of the fact that in another part of the world this data was chosen to be unobserved or ignored by certain parties.

The demonstration of the individuals in front of a camera with gameplay footage on-screen was not just displayed to industry. It was displayed globally to all facets in a viral fashion. This demonstration was the synthesis of the idea of a Let's Play and layout that would drive viral content which was then synthesized to production of a numerous amount of videos in the weeks following. The format, which you say was solidified and created by 'Something Awful', is not representative in any way in reference or in context in a schema format or display, that is before said metadata of the locked and archived data in question which demonstrates the earliest compiled form of the schema. In fact, 'Mack' or 'Mesh' are not even referenced on the 'Something Awful' LParchive.org website, which in turn makes the LParchive.org statement within the book erroneous, nonfactual, and very questionable in nature as it is omitting the first viral gameplay video displayed on numerous computers and television stations across the planet.

Your reliable source book, which is the book in question, is incorrect. Just because a book states it's own truth doesn't make it so when there is verifiable evidence to prove the book incorrect by merely going to the website they mention and typing in the words within their search 'Mack' or 'Mesh'. Your definitive source book that was referenced on page 62, along with the website referenced within it as LParchive.org also does not mention 'Mack' or 'Mesh'. This in turn means the information you are providing is selective in nature and omissive.

Nathan, consensus is done by numerous individuals within the Talk page. The new entry would stay, and the now new and then old entry would be brought into a consensus discussion within this Talk page to compile an amalgamated entry to appease all parties so no one is left out. There is no one entry that supersedes all entries forever. M wikifacts (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)