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 67.70.24.141 (talk) at 20:01, 5 September 2021 (→Digimon Survive release date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of works by Shigeru Miyamoto and game credits

This list came up in an above discussion and I wanted to get wider feedback about where it should go as an article. The current title is "works by Miyamoto" and it has columns for Director, Producer, and Designer. When it comes to giving him "credit" for a game, it gets a little weird because he has such an outsize influence on development, even when he's just a "producer" or "supervisor". As PresN pointed out, "Miyamoto game" is often a metonym for "Nintendo game". Clearly a lot of entries in this list are a product of fanboyism---editors would really like their favorite game to have been designed by Miyamoto so they add it to the list, regardless of his actual input. Many entries have no checkmarks in any of the columns! Officially, he shifted away from hands-on directing and designing into a producer role for the company after SMB3 in 1988 and then shifted to supervisor/GM/"Creative Fellow" roles since circa 2005. So we have to make an editorial decision here about where to draw the line. Here are some off-hand suggestions to get started:

  1. With few exceptions, all games with no checkmarks across the board should be removed. Yes, he probably had some input on the design in some soft-power/advice/tableflippy way, but I think it both undercredits the actual designers of those games and dilutes the idea of a "Miyamoto game" if every single game he glanced at gets called one (see this article for reference to how his influence actually manifests in recent years). I understand he had some more hands-on involvement than usual with Mario + Rabbids but I don't know enough to make the call as to whether that meets our to-be-determined threshold. Obviously any game can be added as an exception as long as sources support it.
  2. We should be careful with producer-only entries. Pikmin probably makes the cut. 1080 Avalanche probably does not. My gut feeling is that most of these can also be cut and sources will be critical to determining if a particular entry had greater input and deserves to stay. I feel there is also a strong year bias with this---earlier producer-only credits (e.g. Link to the Past) probably stay, but later ones after let's say post-2000 probably do not.

I don't know how it'll end up shaking out, length-wise, but my suspicion is that after all the fanboy entries are cut out, the list will be short enough to warrant merging back into his main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the list should be limited to where he is listed in a role that clearly would have day-to-day duties in the development or production of a game, and not simply a game that Nintendo released where he may have intermediate review or oversight. And definitely agree that once he was promoted in 2005 that unless there's specifically clear indication that he was involved in the game (eg Super Mario Run) that we should not include it just because his name may be on the credits somewhere. --Masem (t) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Double agree. I would like to mention that somewhere in the lead it should mention his current position of "Creative Fellow" and his supervising duties, however. Panini!🥪 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've consulted an in-depth interview with Miyamoto from GamesTM's Issue 95 (April 2010), which states that his director credits by that point were only represented by the following works:
Donkey Kong (1980, Arcade)
Donkey Kong Jr. (1982, Arcade)
Donkey Kong 3 (1983, Arcade)
Mario Bros. (1983, Arcade)
Popeye (1983, Arcade)
Devil World (1984, NES)
Super Mario Bros. (1985, NES)
Super Mario Bros. 2 (1985, Famicom Disk System)
The Legend of Zelda (1985, NES)
Super Mario Bros. 3 (1988, NES)
Super Mario 64 (1996, Nintendo 64)
Wii Music (2008, Wii)
And that's where the man's directorial honors end, according to the article, which adds that the other entries of his gameography earn him more of a "hands-off Producer credit". Dunno whether this is of any help, yet I thought it would not be amiss to cite this article's take, just for the sake of clarity. Electroguv (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this helps a lot! Axem Titanium (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source question

Hi. I was vaguely thinking about what I might work on as a bit of light relief when my current rewrites are completed, and my attention drifted to Fairy Fencer F (I have the title on Steam). There's some sourcing problems, and one in particular was that the only interview I've so far found relating to its Advent Dark Force release is this one from DualShockers. I seem to remember DualShockers is questionable, but it's an original interview with it being the only source. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:VG/S DualShockers is listed as unreliable not questionable.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall a discussion a while back regarding interviews in otherwise unreliable sources. I think there were at least some editors who favored allowing cites to a direct interview featured in an otherwise unreliable source. Unfortunately, I can't recall where the discussion was or what the context was. But for whatever it's worth, I personally would be ok with someone citing a direct interview in a generally unreliable source absent some indication that the whole thing was, say, fabricated altogether. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I'd still try to look for at least more reliable citations citing the interview in some way and then use them if at all possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I've found referring to it is a tweet from Idea Factory acknowledging and promoting it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an interview was posted verbatim to an indisputably unreliable source (like a Wikimedia project), I would be okay with that personally. I suppose the question is could an unreliable source fabricate an entire interview, and if so what would be motive? Plus it'd be pretty easy to disprove. So yes, I personally think it's fine.--Coin945 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use interviews published by unreliable sources, personally. Or maybe for uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF claims that fill in details already covered by reliable sources. My concern isn't so much about fabrication, but that unreliable sources are unreliable because they're amateurish and because they don't disclose issues like conflicts of interest. So you can get softball questions, questions that let the developer/publisher guide the narrative, paid coverage and affiliate ads disguised as interviews, etc. They're just another way to stuff articles with promotional puffery and sidestep our requirements for indedendent sources. (I know this isn't your intent, ProtoDrake. I'm just concerned with how this could be abused if it became a guideline.) Woodroar (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment was referring to interviews hosted by an unreliable source, not conducted by it.--Coin945 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the input. If I do end up working on that article, I won't use the DualShockers source. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasutra rebranding as Game Developer

[1] This obviously will not affect its reliability, but this is going to be a PITA related to sourcing/citations. The change won't happen until Thursday, and we'll have to see if they do domain redirects. I assume they will. They are also archive.org friendly, so this isn't like "OMG rush to save everything". But I don't know if we can answer anything until Thursday and see how its all implemented. --Masem (t) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell that author sounds like they'd be real fun to hang out with in person. Some high-brain power thinking going on there taking a unique name and turning it into the most generic form possible that will just incite confusion.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad they changed the name - I was always weary of browsing the website in public, as it kinda sounds like a sex/lewd/porn website...but I can't fathom why they'd change it so something so generic and confusing. I'd already seen this headline before coming here, but hadn't realized that was the actual name. I had read it as "Gamasutra rebrands as game developer." Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're rebranding to have more association with Game Developer magazine. Magazines can usually get away with more generic names because people usually add "Magazine" at the end. Like Edge magazine. But I don't think it's going to have the same effect they're hoping for. Just adding online, or network at the end will help it. Or even just have the URL be the name of the site will help it significantly. Really hope someone from Gamasutra is reading this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have called it Gamenography. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree heavily that a name change was needed, but this was the worst possible name they could change to. I feel like it won't last very long before no one ever finds them in Google and they are forced to switch back. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well this is going to be fun JOEBRO64 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article (now?) says that they'll be putting in redirects so that everything still works, though it might not all be up by Thursday. +1 on changing from a dumb name (and +1 on hopefully upgrading what is a fairly ugly, creaky early-2000s web design), but I also agree that "Game Developer" by itself isn't a great site name, regardless of what the magazine is called. Hopefully once we know what the new urls are, someone can do an AWB run to edit them all on-wiki. --PresN 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone ping that editor who freaks out every time a website is down for five minutes, let them know to not have a heart attack... -_- Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Has heart attack* Panini!🥪 19:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Angeldeb82: so you don't need to worry when Gamasutra links aren't working JOEBRO64 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an early question: Should we consider retroactively changing the name Gamastrua to Game Developer (I've already seeded Game Developer (website) for Thursday), or are we going to state that articles published prior to this date should be sourced to Gamasutra and after to GD? This is not the same as changing the links, which we should do even if redirects are in place. --Masem (t) 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no changes en masse. We should simply use Game Developer when citing new gamedeveloper.com articles and leave Gamasutra where gamasutra.com is already used. Archives for the latter can be created as needed, which is better than unnecessarily altering links. IceWelder [✉] 23:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. I'm of the opinion that articles published before 26 August should be cited as Gamasutra, 26 August onwards as Game Developer. – Rhain ☔ 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They made the switch this morning, and my spot checks show no issues: articles at gamasutra.com still live there, just that the site has Game Developer branding now. If you try to go to Gamasutra directly eg [2] it will take to you the gamedeveloper.com website, but articles at gamasutra.com will still be at that url, so this has no immediate change we need to worry about. I would still keep our heads up if there are still potential changes in the future. --Masem (t) 12:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going over the those cited in Rockstar San Diego, the articles appear to be all carried over. I just see some funny business regarding authors:
The search feature is also pretty bad. It took me several minutes of scrolling to find "The End Game: How Top Developers Sold Their Studios" because it was buried under a swath of unrelated news articles. At least multi-page articles are now conveniently on one page. IceWelder [✉] 14:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secretlab

Hello friends, would anybody happen to have a decent pic of a Secretlab chair? Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce, if you can't find it on Flickr under a CC license, then the next step I'd try would be to get permission to use a non-free use image of it (assuming that also exists). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Video Games page move

I wanted to check here to make sure I hadn't missed any discussions or anything as I couldn't find any from what I could see. I visited the Olympic Video games page to see that a month ago the page was changed to Multi-sport video game. I wanted to make sure this wasn't just a random move done by it's own as the article's opening paragraph still refers to itself as Olympic Video games. If this wasn't done without discussion beforehand, I feel like there should be as the name and the contents of the article don't seem to align correctly. CaptainGalaxy 20:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like an undiscussed (and oddly reasoned) page move. I'd move it back. -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The move has been reverted. If they want to move it again they will have to open a discussion as to its merits. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also gone ahead and redirected the old title(s) to Sports video game#Multi-sport, which is an actual valid target for them. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the previous title would also to non Olympic video games such as Mario Sports Mix. If anything it’s better as a separate article.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 16 to August 22)

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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

August 17

  • None

August 18

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

  • Am I the only one who thinks the WP:BOLD merge of Sims expansion packs should be reverted? Per WP:NOTPAPER there is no need to condense articles if they are notable, and each expansion pack got many critical reviews. The resulting article is also much harder to navigate.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of any development aspects (on a spot check) and unsourced discussion of what's included, and mostly just summarizing reviews, I see no issue with the condensing of those to single articles. The infoboxes aren't required for each on the combined page (or least fully detailed ones, release dates are still helpful, covers fail NFC). Just because something gets reviews doesn't mean a standalone article is always required, we need to consider overall comprehesive presentation of material. --Masem (t) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the creator of this article. Few of these expansion packs get many critical reviews, and many of the expansion pack articles were marked as stubs, hence there was a need to merge the articles. Theknine2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they were marked as stubs does not mean they should be merged, per WP:NEXIST. A lot of the merged expansion packs got many, many critical reviews, in contravention of what you are saying. By any measure, the reviews are enough to indicate significant coverage. Just as one example, The Sims: Livin' Large got 23 reviews on Metacritic, including at least 8 from obviously major outlets. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of games included with Windows seems like WP:GAMECRUFT to me, especially when the majority of games are either not independently notable or happens to be the same game that is always included with Windows, such as Microsoft Solitaire. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it largely uses Mobygames as a source is also a problem. It's interesting information but may also be WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is an issue but it seems like a topic that is ripe for a reporter to do an epic oral history of in the coming years. My feeling is that the topic itself is notable but a list might not be the right format. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the creator of this article. I have since changed the lengthy list format into a table as it is more appropiate. If you can, I welcome anyone to help edit the article. Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it is presented better, it still personally edges on the border of WP:GAMECRUFT to me. Perhaps the table and a paragraph can just be merged into the main Windows article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Video Game Data

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in commenting on the AfD for List of Video Game Data. Thanks! – Rhain ☔ 12:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Boulevard

Moved to WT:VG/RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DigiBlast

This new RfD may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_30#DigiBlast. It concerns a puzzling case of a seemingly non-notable short-lived video game console. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 23 to August 29)

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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

August 24

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

Found a new odd corner case this week- Glacier (game engine) was imported into user space from a different language wikipedia, complete with history, so the original creator gets credited by the script with illegal characters (as ru>XFI instead of just XFI). I've manually adjusted it to the translator, just thought it was neat that there's an "import all history from other language wiki" option now.

Also, if you saw List of Video Game Data and thought "there's at least 3 things wrong with that" - Rhain is way ahead of you with the AfD. --PresN 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can someone help verifying the reliability of the sources used on Higgs Domino? They are all in languages I do not speak. IceWelder [✉] 13:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the cited sources are reliable, some of it are mainstream news outlets. I can see that almost all of it is news coverage in relation to the controversy it generated with political and religious leaders in Indonesia as an online gambling game, so that is easily verifiable. None of the sources seem to contain any developmental info or critical reception, outside of the controversy and a vague claim of significance that it is very popular in the country, but the aggregate coverage does seem to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG threshold. Haleth (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fright Night (video game)

Does anyone have access to the non-English sources listed in this article? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging List of works by Shigeru Miyamoto into Shigeru Miyamoto

I removed the extraneous entries per the above discussion and this list is now down to under 40 entries (~1 page of screen height). I think it might be worth merging back into Miyamoto's main page. Most game directors have their works list on their page itself so you can see it easily without needing to navigate elsewhere. I don't think the WP:SIZESPLIT reasoning outweighs the benefits to keeping the info in one place in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93, Electroguv, Indrian, and Rhain: As recent editors on this list, any input on this topic? Apologies for ping. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome to ping for a response. I'd support such a merger with the caveat that we simplify it even further by just listing their role instead of having checkmarks on top of it (which is something that film director articles tend to have but seems tacky to me). Basically it would look like it does on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article, but I'm not sure if other editors prefer such minimalistic tables like I tend to. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dissident on the ping, the merger, and the table. I'm familiar with the simpler method at Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley and I think it makes more sense for games (though I don't feel too strongly either way). – Rhain ☔ 23:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by, but I think the simpler method is better. It's more similar to filmography tables, and it doesn't require a forgetful reader (i.e., me) to scroll back up and down to keep track of which column is which. I also agree that a merge looks warranted. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same here as regards the ping, it's a matter of course. As for the merger, I think that the issue needs to be considered beyond the question of simplifying the material's presentation. According to WP:AUTHOR's criteria of notability, a biographical article should underline the impact of the article subject's contributions to a recognized medium, as opposed to a citation of their assorted contributions, and, per WP:SUMMARY, the notability of the major subtopic (i.e. Miyamoto's softography) warrants standalone coverage. As it stands, the primary article about the creative professional seems to fufill the impact overview prong, and describes the career milestones of Miyamoto's work in extensive detail, so the inclusion of an embedded list would just come down to a derivative reframing of the information already stated in the body, essentially amounting to padding. Thinking in terms of the filmmaking analogy that has been suggested, this case bears comparison with the examples of Akira Kurosawa and James Cameron's articles, wherein the citation of works is either rendered as a separate article (as in the Kurosawa entry) or as an abridged article section giving only the directorial credits with reference to an isolated list of works (see Cameron's article). Methinks that the second avenue is particularly well-judged as a given model, as it doesn't overwhelm the reader with a barrage of items of information and manages to outline the essentials of an artist's career while suggesting that there is further substance within the separate topic about that person's body of work (as is clearly Miyamoto's case). So I'd suggest considering the merit of those alternative scenarios rather than going with the merger option headfirst. To put it otherwise, I'm rather inclined to think that less is more in the case at issue. Electroguv (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I agree with merging. If the lead paragraph is gonna merge with the table, please mention his Creative Fellow role nowadays. It'll help explain some gaps. Panini!🥪 12:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is fine by me. Indrian (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I've completed the merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge: Twin Famicom, Famicom Titler, and Nintendo Entertainment System

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the articles Twin Famicom and Famicom Titler be merged into the article Nintendo Entertainment System. And at least one of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Nintendo Entertainment System. Thank you! --SmartAn01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New industry award to track?

The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) ran the inaugurial Global Industry Game Awards (GIGA) in association with part of Gamescom this last weekend. (See [3] and [4] for example.

Given that we've gone through in the past to remove some of the lesser known awards, I ask if this if this award would be different given that it is by one of the larger organizations in video games rather than some small entity. (I've documented they do these awards but haven't made a separate page for them yet). --Masem (t) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland: Possible Good article?

The article for Wasteland (video game) is solid, in my opinion. I'm thinking of nominating it for Good article status. I wonder if editors more experienced with video game articles think it is a worthwhile nomination. What do you think? Vivatheviva (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a very quick first glance, the sourcing in the gameplay section is rather spotty and the reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The development section could probably use some expansion using the Retro Gamer source mentioned on the talk page. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: I've been trying to get my hands on the Retro Gamer source, but I can't find a copy. I'll keep digging around. As for the gameplay section, what is ideal sourcing for gameplay? Thanks for your insight! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivatheviva: As to the gameplay sourcing, previews and reviews can do, the manual if there is one can give you some detail stuff if needed. No wikis. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Excellent. Thanks for the tip! Vivatheviva (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Retro Gamer issue was uploaded in full to Issuu. You probably won't be able to cite the URL but the magazine easily works without it. IceWelder [✉] 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. I'll get on that. Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vivatheviva, It's on the right track! I might give you some comments before you go for GA. Please remember that User:Saynotodrugs12 is the article's top editor (well, User:SNAAAAKE!! is up there too but they've been banned for a while now), so make sure you consult with them before nominating. Panini!🥪 14:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: I'm new to this process, so thanks for the heads up! Also, I would love your comments. Vivatheviva (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for entries at a new table at Indie game

at Indie game#Successful indie games, I've started a table to list those games that are confirmed to have sales of 1 million or more (this is a starting cutoff - it may need to be pushed higher if many examples exist of that). Note that this should be sales confirmed through RSes - not only mentioned by twitter and not repeated in RSes, and not estimates like Steam Spy. Me and other editors have added major examples, but if anyone knows of other indie games that would fit this criteria, please add as appropriate. Again, if there's too many entries on this, I'm going to cut off the lower bound minimum (looking like this may be 2 million now) but to at least collect data, 1 million seems fair. --Masem (t) 23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Survive release date

Digimon Survive was claimed to have been delayed to Q3 2022, however this was a misunderstanding by the sources. Toei stated the game had been delayed to Q3 2022 yes, but this means fiscal year, not actual year. in the report where toei stated that's when the game would release page two explicitly states that the time period they are reporting their earnings on is Q1 2022 with that period covering being April - June 2021. that means Toei's Q2 2022 is July - September 2021 and their q3 is october - december 2021. im listing here as people keep listing the game with a 2022 release date when nothing has stated this outside of people misunderstanding the difference between fiscal year and actual year including the sources. I brought here because ive already reverted this three times back to 2021.Muur (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should rely on reliable, third-party sources to interpret these projected dates, not perform our own analysis or calculations of what fiscal dates might mean. So we've got "Fiscal Year 2022 Q3 and Beyond" from Gematsu and "Q3 2022" and "a release window of July 1 – September 30 2022" from NME, although Nintendo Life says it might be sooner. Woodroar (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all of the other sources says 2022 and Nintendo Life theorized that the rating could suggest it may come out earlier we should change the date back to 2022 on the Digimon Survive page until we get something more concrete regarding a 2021 release.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1042595704"