Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.92.163.98 (talk) at 15:48, 22 May 2021 (→‎Can two characters with the same identity be together?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Formalizing "Virtual reality" as a platform

A couple weeks ago I asked if we should consider VR as its own platform within the infobox (as to deal with VR-only games) and there seemed to be agreement to do this so I'd like to formally seek this approach and make sure we have a right way to do it.

I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like. My initial ideas of this would be:

  • If the game only has official VR releases (no flatscreen), like Half-Life: Alyx, then its only platform should be "Virtual reality". Same with Astro Bot Rescue Mission. No "Windows" or "PS4", as this eliminates the issue of documenting the "base" OS of Oculus. The first release on any VR platform should be documented.
  • Otherwise, if there is a VR release option alongside flatscreen, like No Man's Sky, then it's just a platform to be documented like any other.
  • This logic also applies to release dates.

The lede/body can get into the details of specific releases on which VR models got a release first /etc.

My only concern is how this looks for a case like Astro Bot. Simplificaton is good but that approach clearly cuts out the indication its a PS-system only game in the infobox. But if I understand the present market, there's basically three ways to break out how VR units work, being on PS, on PC/Windows, and standalone (Oculus). Would it make sense at the present time to treat VR as three possible platforms - VR-PC, VR-PS, and VR-standalone then? We could then say, for infobox purposes, that Alyx was "Virtual reality (Windows)", Astro Bot "Virtual reality (PlayStation)" and No Man's Sky "Virtual reality (Windows, PlayStation, standalone)" as the platform. Or alternatively, only when the game is exclusive to one type of headset do we need to make that indication, and when it is available on multiple types of headsets, just call it "Virtual reality" like for No Man's Sky? --Masem (t) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like.
You and other people have thought about this way more than me, but could you explain the logic of this approach?
I don't get the logic of making VR its own "platform". This to me makes as much sense as making "handheld" a platform. We use the "platform" field to describe the systems that run the game, right? Why muddy that?
My first impulse - again, without having thought about this that much - is to continue to list the hardware/system that's actually running the game and treat VR as essentially an external peripheral, like a lightgun. So the Alyx platforms would be Windows and Linux, since those systems are running the game, not VR. For games that run on Oculus Quest (a standalone system that doesn't require connection to consoles or PCs), we can list Oculus Quest as the platform, since the Quest itself is running it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is trying to deal with the issue of Oculus, but further that VR games are genuinely considered as a new "platform" like the difference between arcade and console games. Awards have separate categories for VR titles. Industry economic reports group VR differently from most other computer games, etc. There's enough indication that while on a technical basis we can classify most VR games by their underlying OS, that everyone else treat VR itself as a base platform, and at least in the infobox we should be giving that indicator somehow for a game that supports VR. Half-Life: Alyx's infobox alone does not at all indicate it is a VR game yet it is the killer app for VR and we're missing this somehow. --Masem (t) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. So, ^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the reply. I get the logic here but I'm very cautious to go along with it, because I think we're at risk of adding more confusion than clarity by introducing wildly inconsistent rules to our infobox fields. Popcornfud (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I want to be careful how we introduce it and set rules for it, just as we were careful when we considered Stadia as a platform after routinely not adding other streaming platforms. --Masem (t) 15:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't part of the Stadia discussion - is there a good place to see what the logic/rules were around that? Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason was that it included exclusives that couldn't be played on other platforms. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if something has exclusives it is a platform? Interesting. ➧datumizer  ☎  23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not so much about that, as it would be kind of weird to have games without a platform in the infobox (or at least without a valid entry on the "platform" field of inboxes.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think VR should be treated as a platform. If anything, it's a whole different paradigm that doesn't have any past analogies. The only unambiguously separate characteristic is that you need a headset. But it may or may not need specific hardware, like PC or console or phone or being stand-alone. The game may or may not need specific platform like Windows or whatever console or handheld. The games may or may not support any combination of OS, hardware, and headset. And that's not mentioning tracking (if any) or controller (if any) or modes (room-scale, seated, etc.) compatibility. There are just too many variables that I don't think this will ever fit with the existing schemes, especially since existing schemes are still applicable with both VR and non-VR modes. I would go as far as to say that VR games should have infobox VR fields where things like headsets and such are described in some ways that you are already thinking about. It's certainly a headache-inducing question. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that stands out is that right now for a VR-only game, our current approach on the infobox does not make it clear that a VR-only game is actually VR unless editors misuse parameters like on Astro Bot right now. An arcade game is clearly indicated, and as long as one is familiar with home vs handheld, one can clearly make the distinction of those platforms. With VR, we don't yet have the type of ecosystem where every headset is its own platform (some are, like Oculus), but going down the line that each supported headset is mentioned as a platform almost is like the early days of personal computer games ala Lemmings where there would become dozens of platforms listed. I would strongly advise against the addition of a separate parameter to indicate a VR game as we have recently removed parameters tied to arcade games for the same reason. But I think we can indicate VR in a minimally intrusive way. --Masem (t) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about article "Roblox"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roblox#Splitting Proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result was split. Panini!🥪 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 6 to May 9)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

Bot came back, so there's 7 days compressed into 4. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names on templates

An editor has recently performed the following edit, removing a hatnote of sorts which spells out the systems' original name, the rationale being that this isn't adding any additional link to navigate to. if people want to know alternative names, they can click the link in the article. This followed a discussion over a similar change insisted for Template:Resident Evil. I should note that according to the NES template box's edit history, the hatnote has existed on the template for NES for several years without any objection from any other editors over a template's proper usage on Wikipedia, and that there does not appear to be any guideline or policy that I am aware of which provides guidance on whether alternate names which are used in parallel with the established common name should or should not be included on the nav box. Common sense aside, I don't believe a link must have a valid white link for it to warrant inclusion on a nav box under any circumstances? Haleth (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this is common sense. These aren't articles, they're just templates to assist in navigating between articles. So why do we need a guideline to optimize the template for what they're designed to do?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sega Genesis/Mega Drive is a different circumstance because Mega Drive is the name in Europe as well (English-speaking) and not just in Japan. Famicom/NES and Biohazard/Resident Evil are circumstances when they are only known as those names in non-English speaking locations. That's why I didn't do that for those templates.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Famicom was sold as Famicom in several non-Japanese speaking countries, at least a few where English is indeed widely spoken as a second language, the Philippines being one example. The "Biohazard" name or brand has been used and continues to be used in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. English is certainly spoken by a significant portion of the population in Hong Kong, for example. Again, this is the American or European perspective dictating content I was referring to when I protested. Haleth (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in the Resident Evil discussion, I'm in favor of keeping templates simple. They're for navigation, not information.
Let's just the terms used in the articles themselves, which derive from the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I could maybe imagine exceptions in circumstances where multiple names are so commonly used in the English-speaking world (this is the English Wikipedia) that only using one may cause confusion, but NES/Famicom isn't that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Things like this are explained in articles. And are generally explained there to a degree that borders excessive. They don't belong on navigation templates too. Keep them simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic. I would personally like to see alternate names in navbox headers, infobox headers and even page titles/headers. (In small font.) But imagine if NES had been released under a different name in each region, or in each and every country (even limiting to same language). We would have to list them all, thereby creating a huge mess! (And there are probably plenty of non-video game-related areas of the site where this issue crops up a lot more. For instance, Wikipedia got rid of the list of languages in the sidebar because there were so many.) ➧datumizer  ☎  00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I've generally fallen on the side of keeping nav templates for navigation, not information. Let redirects do the work of sending people to the explanation of alternate names. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FT/GT opinion

Hi, I've got a problem. I've ended up nominating two topics at the same time (Fabula Nova Crystallis and Final Fantasy Type-0). I knew there might be work involved in getting them passed, but the scope of objections and requests are getting beyond my current Wikipedia allowance. My real world commitments aren't giving me the time or energy to address them with full adequacy, along with the slow-going/suspended GAs I've got at the moment (Dead Space music and Akitoshi Kawazu). Would it be better to close the topic noms down? If so, how do I do that? (Just to clarify, the points being raised within the topic noms are valid and need addressing, but combined with other Wiki projects and real-world commitments, I'm finding myself unable to invest energy to address them.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like on Type-0 they want trans-titles for the Japanese references, and on FNC/Type-0 they want a subcategory for FNC? I can handle that. (The other comment, that Oerba Yun Fang and Oerba Dia Vanille aren't in the FF13 topic, is separate from these topic noms and one that's easily solved by merging them back into Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series; I'll handle that too). --PresN 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Handled the trans-titles and the category, so you're up to 4 supports on the Type-0 GTC and no pending objections on the FNC FTC. I think they'll be fine. --PresN 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a review from Game Informer Issue 115 (November 2002)

Hey, I'm working to improve Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, a stub article with barely any content. According to my research, there should be a review of the game in Issue 115 of Game Informer (November 2002), but sadly I can't find an online copy. If anyone has a copy of this issue, the review would be greatly appreciated. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find Game Informer's review online either, so I hope someone'll help out! In the meantime, I found a review in Total Advance (owned by Paragon Publishing) for you [1]. There's also a coverage of the game in 4Players's sister website [2]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast for those finds - thank you so much! That should get the article to at least five reviews (I have reviews from IGN and GameZone, plus the GI one) which is quite respectable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05: It's only brief, but you can find the full review on the bottom left here, written by Matt Helgeson. Looks like somebody uploaded the full issue to Imgur (though the images appear out of order to me). – Rhain ☔ 23:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, Rhain that's exactly what I needed! Didn't expect it to be long but it's more than enough. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05:I'll also help you, not with reviews but uploading a gameplay screenshot for the page. I'm busy with college stuff but it's the least i can do to help! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @KGRAMR:! I should have the prose done in my sandbox very soon so that would be great once I shift everything over to the main page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05:Cool! ping me once you move your work into the page's artcile to upload the screenshot. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KGRAMR ready to rumble! I ordered the manual off eBay (couldn't find a scan), which should cover the two citation needed tag.Toa Nidhiki05 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey

Hey all! I'm drafting up another survey. To not be annoying, this might be my last one for a while. The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If I have not reached out to you on your talk page and you would like to participate and make your voice heard, please leave a response on my talk page. Thank you! Panini!🥪 02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 10 to May 16)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16


  • Not sure if hoaxes or just being waaay too preemptive since most appears as redirects to an untitled Sonic game, which is something we know Sega is working on, but it 1) unnecessary to have an article for and 2) completely wrong to create a bunch of possible redirects from all possible Sonic series on the presumption one of these could be it. --Masem (t) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, one of the the same IPs created a Super Luigi Galaxy 3 draft too, which really pushes the limits of my good faith interpretations. But that aside, what you said is exactly why I started deleting a bunch of the drafts I came across - real of fakes, there's no point in having a Sonic Generations 2 draft when there's literally nothing known about the subject. We're not in such a rush that an empty draft that says "Sonic Generations 2 is a video game" is particularly helping anyone out. (The ones I deleted were actual drafts, not just redirects.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick and easy vandalism is one thing, but I'll never understand how people can take the time to create extremely obvious hoaxes that would be reverted on sight instead of improving existing articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda gave up tracking them, but this reminds me of our old LTA User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about Game & Wario? Honestly.

I'm doing a sweep-through of the WarioWare series. Why? Good question. How should I rewrite the gameplay section of Game & Wario? Simply explain that there are twelve or should I list them out and explain them, like Nintendo Land? Panini!🥪 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: you could follow Kirby Super Star's format. try you're best to reduce the gameplay to a few sentences each game mode and not to have a full-length paragraph.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massive character lists

These two articles, List of Kirby characters and Characters in the Mario franchise, have been poor quality for at least a decade. They both cover dozens, if not hundreds, of characters in superficial detail. When we have character lists as big as these, would it help to denote some sort of guideline aside from notability that can help cull and get these articles under control? In other words, where could someone start if they wanted to improve this article, and how can we make it easier? I guess these questions are extremely broad, but I wanted to get some attention to this, as it's definitely not limited to just these two articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the Sonic list, which by no means is a great article, we created inclusion criteria like having multiple playable appearances or something to that capacity. It's culled out some of the minor one-off characters at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sergecross's suggestion makes a lot of sense, and would apply in these two cases, if not more generally. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to making Serge's suggestion a MOS-type of guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ferret and I recently enforced a similar guideline at Talk:List of Roblox games. Panini!🥪 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:LISTCRITERIA for those looking for a guideline to quote. Makes total sense in these two cases. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book citations

I'm nearing the completion of the FAC of Paper Mario, finally. The article cites this book for the 2020 sales of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, but I'm unsure which pages say so. Does anyone have this book to confirm the pages, or is there an alternative link to finding so? I'm no good with book citations... Panini!🥪 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have the book but here is the very detailed ToC. If you know which chapter your numbers are from, you know approximately where to look. IceWelder [✉] 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly in the day of ebooks where there is no effective pages, citing the chapter is appropriate. WP:V wants enough "narrowing" of the source so that you're giving the reader a reasonable location to search through, and instead of a 400-600 page book, a 20-30 page range in a chapter is fine for this. --Masem (t) 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to User:Roadrunnerto‎. They're the one that implemented the CESA citations into the List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS video games and List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games, so I assume they hopefully have an answer to what chapter it can be found in. Panini!🥪 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the table of contents for the CESA white papers at [3] and from there you can see that the chapter is Chapter 10 - Research Materials, specifically pages 182-223. --Roadrunnerto 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roadrunnerto, Thank you! I have another CESA question for you that I hope you have the answer to, then that should be it for me; the List of best-selling Nintendo 64 video games also has a CESA reference but it's very vague. By any chance do you know if it's referring to the same or another book? If so, what is its ISBN number? Panini!🥪 01:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Panini!, every year CESA (Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association) releases a White Paper that explores trends in the Japanese video game market. What we are most interested in is that CESA gets the raw sales data from companies who opt in, where Nintendo happens to be the largest who contribute. This has the effect of allowing us to obtain the sales data of all Nintendo game. Since these white papers are a yearly publication, usually released in the June-August period, and they have the data from December in the previous year. i.e. The CESA White Papers 2020, have the sales data for Nintendo Switch up until December 31, 2019. To answer your question, the last CESA White Paper to contain NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, GB, GBA, and DS games was the CESA White Papers 2015, i.e. up to December 31, 2014. The WiiU, Switch, and 3DS are still being updated, and are in the CESA White Papers 2020. You can find the ISBN for these books at [4]. It is important to also note that Nintendo also updates the top 10 selling games for Wii, WiiU, Switch, DS and 3DS quarterly here [5]. If you want an easy to find list of Nintendo Games and their sales data look here [6]. Most of the historical data is sourced from the CESA White Papers. Please note that there are no easy to find references on this page, so if the listing is not updated as of December 31, then take it with caution. It is especially important to note that the most recent figures for a majority of the Switch games are taken from an insiders data, and are not official sales figures (the sources from June 2020). I have fully updated this page [7] with all OFFICIAL sales figures, so if the number is different to this, then it is an insiders figure and is not to be sourced on wikipedia. --Roadrunnerto 02:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation as it currently stands, if it helps at all: "CESA Games White Papers. Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association." Panini!🥪 01:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo GAs

Hi. As a small project, I've been expanding the article for Ogre Battle Gaiden: Prince of Zenobia for the Neo Geo Pocket Color. I haven't really seen any GAs, let alone anything above that, of titles for that console. Since I'm considering taking Prince of Zenobia to GAN in the future once things are less hectic, I was wondering if there were any examples I could find for comparison given the console's unique sourcing problems. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake:Hmmm... The only examples I could think of are Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure and Never 7: The End of Infinity. Roberth Martinez (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KGRAMR: Never 7 isn't really applicable since it's multiplatform and emerged on a more powerful system. Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure seems like the best comparison for structure reference and such since it was created for the NGPC. It's also recent enough that it's closer to modern GA standards than many earlier articles might be. Thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for discussion

A redirect relevant to this Wikiproject has been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#Nascar racing. Interested users are invited to participate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review thread: The Continuing Adventures

Its about time we had another one of these:

FACs
Peer Reviews
GANs

GamerPro64 01:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axel and a copyeditor recently edited Judgment so I think there might not be major issues in regards to its prose if somebody wants to review it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back with more citation requests for a Bionicle game

Thanks again to everyone here for the help on Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, which is now no longer a stub page and has a robust review section now. I have one more game I'm working on for the Bionicle series - Bionicle (2003), aka Bionicle: The Game. I've found a good number of reliable online sources (including from IGN, GameSpot, GameZone, and Game Informer), but there are a slew of highly-reliable magazine reviews I can't find online. I'm looking for any of the following issues, which should contain reviews for the game:

  • Nintendo Power (December 2003, GBA Version of the game - unknown page)
  • Nintendo Power (January 2004, console version of the game - page 159)
  • Official Xbox Magazine (January 2004, page 63)
  • PC Gamer (February 2004, page 77)
  • PSM Magazine (Holiday 2003, page 46)
  • Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine (December 2003, page 152)
  • GameNow (November or December 2003)

The first Nintendo Power one is particularly important, as the GBA version of this game (which is genuinely one of the worst games I've ever played) received practically no attention from reliable sources. As far as I can tell, it's the only review from an RS of the game. Any variety of the rest would be helpful as well as well as any other reviews that can be found - these are just the issues that I know have reviews of the game. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the OXM review. Also found this scan of an issue of Lego Magazine, which includes a little piece from the game devs. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found reviews of the game in two other magazines: Xbox Nation [8] and Cube (magazine) [9]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks so much to both! Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive fundraiser

The Internet Archive has scheduled a fundraiser for their software collection. The virtual event, Game Not Over! A Fireside Chat With John Carmack, is scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 9:00 PM – 10:30 PM EDT. It is a panel with John Carmack, Jason Scott, Garry Kitchen, and others discussing game history preservation and the Internet Archive's role in it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can two characters with the same identity be together?

While researching interviews and reviews, I was surprised by how much content does the character Chiaki Nanami from Danganronpa has. Popularity, creation, voice actress, a full analsys about how her role in the anime sequel is so important among others. However, there is something that is revealed in the finale that completely changes how to adress the character. In the finale of the series, it is revealed there were two Chiakis in a similar form to Enter the Matrix twists but here there is one real (the one from the anime) while the first one (the one from the game) was instead an AI completely identical to her. I'm not confident I can can bring one alone an article but I was confused with other fictional characters like Sub-Zero from Mortal Kombat or Trunks from Dragon Ball who have multiple incarnations. Linking User:Haleth since he also has experience with writing characters.Tintor2 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go back to the sources and see whether the characters in question are conceived together or discussed together as a pair by the author(s) in the sources. Alexios and Kassandra is a good example. Unlike most player avatar characters, they are not meant to be gender-swapped versions of the same individual (e.g. Commander Shepard or Revan), but are siblings (and not twins at that). Each character takes on a distinct personality (one becomes the protagonist, the other becomes a major villain) which is dependent on the role they end up playing within the narrative according to the player's choice at the start. The sources almost always end up discussing them together. What I've discovered is that reception is where the weight in coverage between incarnations often diverges; you'll find that one way or another, commentators do form a consensus where one incarnation is preferred over the other(s). On the balance, I don't find that coverage between the two siblings, and the in-universe roles they play, is distinct enough to necessitate separate articles for each. Sub-Zero is not unlike the comic book oriented articles which discuss superhero characters with different identities in the same article, and the reason why both incarnations of Trunks share the same article is because the present-day Trunks doesn't get enough coverage on his own. Haleth (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course you can. In this scenario I doubt they'd have much in the way of coverage independent of one another anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there was enough to make separate articles for The two of them they still doesn’t mean Rhee couldn’t be mentioned together. For example, all of the major charters they have taken on the mental of the comic book villain Green Goblin are mentioned on the main article despite the fact that most of them are independently notable from that persona and have their own articles.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1024512658"