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 MilkyDefer (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 26 October 2023 (→New Articles (October 16 to October 22): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Age of Civilizations II

A old game, but please, can you create this article. It have on Turkish wiki: tr:Age of History II СтасС (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a draft at Draft:Age of History II. – Pbrks (t • c) 01:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--СтасС (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@СтасС Turkish article has no sources. Metacritic has no critic reviws, this may not be notable. (Also, 2018 is "old" these days? :P). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admins en-wiki, please, delete this draft.--СтасС (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about the featured article New Super Mario Bros.

Hello, I want to report here this discussion: Talk:New Super Mario Bros.#Tree Redjedi23 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (October 2 to October 8)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

October 3

October 4

October 5

October 6

October 7

October 8

Was out of town, so later than usual. --PresN 15:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad WPVG finally acknowledged Ruffles! They're my favorite snack. Panini! • 🥪 16:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting "year in video games" lists?

Articles like 2022 in video games tend to get very long. I propose that these articles be split into two articles. 2022 in video games can be about the general overview, awards, major events, the industry, video game tech, film adaptations, etc. Then the actual super long list of games can be split to List of video games in 2022 or List of 2022 video game releases. This would make both the general summary and the list easier to access and read without the other getting in the way. I suggest splitting all of the articles from 2001 in video games through 2024 in video games like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be a logical split, considering 2022 and 2023 are currently the 15th and 25th longest pages on Wikipedia, respectively, with over 500k bytes each. 2016, 2017, and 2021 are also in the top 500 with over 350k. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if I suggested that... we could just link to the categories instead. Self-populating, saves considerable effort. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that split would do quite little to solve the issue. It might produce one nice-looking article about that year in gaming, but the big list would remain just as big. These big lists do seem functional and reasonable to have distinct from categories... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lists do have more info than the categories, but I agree with Ferret that splitting the pages just ends up with two pages that need updating, and doesn't actually solve the list length issue (as the list of video games is the heaviest section of the pages by far.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of games released is often plagued with inclusion of random indie games that don't get any larger coverage, as well as re-releases (not remasters/remakes) of a game on different systems. There's lots of ways to trim those lists, and it should be considered impossible today to list every major game release. Masem (t) 13:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of minimum criteria would make it more workable, though I don't know what that would be. Units sold comes to mind, but that can be hard to source, and it would exclude well-known free games. Then there's a certain number of independent reviews, but even one reference per game is already a huge load on the page. And then of course, as said above, there's always removing the lists entirely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could always reduce the load on the page by adopting the same method or a similar one that "Deaths in YEAR" lists do: References should be in <ref>[url & title]</ref> format, as full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit. Making everyone manually type out the citation information instead of using the template wouldn't solve the length issue, but it would decrease the page load while still allowing for references that are being used for the inclusion criteria. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a script to do just this in case this is something we would like to do. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The usual starting point for many LISTCRITs is to require the entries to be independently notable, with perhaps an except for those that nearly meet the bar with reliable secondary sourcing beyond simple announcements. List of Nintendo Switch games follows this, because of the sheer amount of shovelware available now on the eShop. That list does not allow primary sourcing, requiring entries to have their own article or secondary sourcing to back the entry. At the same time, the Nintendo Switch list reveals the scope of the problem. Even with the LISTCRIT limitation, for the last 3 years, the Nintendo Switch list totals well over 1500kb and is incomplete even with the LISTCRIT limitation. "B" alone had to be split and has 200kb. That means for 2021-2023, Nintendo Switch alone represents 1500kb of entries for the 3 year articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the lists should be deleted entirely without any split. The categories already exist, and notable game releases are already covered in the core article if they received a Metacritic score of 90 or higher. The article is impossible to read or edit on laptops and mobile devices due to its length and a split would not help. NegativeMP1 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we're divided between splitting and deleting the lists. Splitting could also involve setting inclusion criteria for the lists. Is it possible for us to settle on one of these solutions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I don't personally believe this will end up being deleted if its sent to WP:AFD. I think you'd get a lot of "Keep - Of course the cross-section of video games and years is notable" comments just because there are so many "(Year) in (Subject)" articles out there. Regardless of whether or not that's true or a valid argument, it tends to be how it goes for these sorts of lists. I think it would be better to try to get some inclusion criteria going or something. Trimming out games that don't have their own dedicated articles, trimming out late ports/basic remasters, splitting out platforms like PC or mobile, etc. (Just brainstorming, I'm sure there's pitfalls to any of those examples listed.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the delete option wasn't AFD the whole article but deleting the list section from the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave the Diver

There's been a running dispute at Dave the Diver over whether Mintrocket, a subsidiary of Nexon, is an indie developer. Reliable sources, who have acknowledged that Mintrocket is a subsidiary of Nexon, have nevertheless said they're an indie developer and this is an indie game. However, this issue seems to have become a big issue to some people on Reddit. Someone recently removed several reliable sources and said it's not an indie game, cited to an interview on a Korean website. Does anyone know if this source is reliable and thus the interview might be trustworthy? And would a machine-translated interview with the developer overrule what third-party reliable sources say? WP:VG/OFFICIAL seems to apply here, but one could also invoke WP:ABOUTSELF and say that this is correcting a mistaken belief by the press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they only removed the videogames.si source in that edit, keeping all the other sources prominently describing it as an indie game in the title. If we can confirm that the interview is properly legitimate, I think it's reasonably to at least omit "indie" from the lede section. We can still write about it having indie aesthetics for sure, using indie as a sort of movement of game design. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree it is not an indie dev. First, there is the quote posted on the talk page. Through my own research, I found a separate quote directly from Nexon saying that Mintrocket is an in-house division. "Had 'P3' been developed normally inhouse, it would have been presented to users under the name Mint Rocket". It appears this could be a case of an editorial mistake by Sports Illustrated because of the game's indie-esque appearance.
Obviously this is problematic but per WP:IAR, Wikipedia is not required to state anything a source says if there's clear evidence it could be wrong. I would err on the side of removing the indie game mentions and referring to it as a Nexon subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. I don't care whether individual Wikipedians think Mintrocket is an indie developer. There is no question that they are a subsidiary of Nexon; however, that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are an independent developer. On Wikipedia, the only relevant criteria is whether reliable sources identify them as such, and multiple reliable sources have said this is an indie game, and one explicitly identified them as an indie developer. Eurogamer themselves have said that it is an independent game made by a Nexon subsidiary; this is cited directly in the article. So, we don't need editors to come to their own personal conclusions. Eurogamer has already done it for us. What I am asking is not "do you think this is an indie developer?" I am asking if the Korean website is a reliable source. If it isn't, then the interview could be faked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the question of whether the talk page interview is an RS, because I am unsure, and looking purely for English sources that might be relevant, there is an alternate Eurogamer article in which Eurogamer says: "Do you find it as fascinating as I do how every now and then you get a whiff of VERY NOT INDIE BUDGET peering out from behind its indie facade? [...] It's published and perhaps made by Nexon, right, who are completely huge? I would love to know how this game came to be!" It's possible that when Eurogamer said "indie RPG" they meant "indie-style RPG" or that they simply contradicted themselves due to a misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I add some games to the Monster-taming game category. TroyToonTrotStudios (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Korean sources, I am currently working on Blue Archive, another Korean game, in my home wiki. A quick glance of the kowiki shows that they list the following websites:
I have no knowledge of Korean, but I believe this could help. MilkyDefer 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a pity that the Korean source claiming that Mintrocket is not an indie, is not in that list. I think we cannot jump to the conclusion that the site is unreliable -- we might need to find someone familiar with Korean games. MilkyDefer 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured Requests page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has gone under a complete restructuring.

  • The list was reduced from 486 to 190 requests
  • The plain text list was replaced with a table to help with filtering and navigation
  • Requests that are over a year old and are composed only of simply reviews, previews, and release information are now moved to a new archive page. This is to keep the main page focused on new requests and those with developer interviews or other interesting analysis. Archived requests are still valid and can be assessed there.

Please take a look. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (October 9 to October 15)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

October 10

October 11

October 12

October 13

October 14

October 15

Title move discussion for Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon

Discussion is here. Many of the original voters were already on the fence of using the Dark Moon subtitle. Panini! • 🥪 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

football video game

I was adding descriptions of genras to games listed at game canon. That one doesn't exist, unless the game listed (Sensible World of Soccer) there is meant to represent the genra of Sports video game. In either case, it seems like a possible fun topic to create a new article on, if anyone is so inclined. (We have a List of association football video games and category, but no main article). Hmmm, that probably would need to be a disambig between Association and American footballs? :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that specific sport games are just a general category under sports games, which normally do not separate articles for them unless its a case of things like racing game which includes more fantasy-like settings and such. Masem (t) 17:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A History of... article has certainly got legs if the sources are available. There's a huge difference between Jon Ritman cutting the noses off the bears from Bear Bovver in order to create footballer sprites for Match Day and players being scanned and motion captured for the latest Fifa (or whatever it's called) - X201 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category inclusion should require an official release?

I noticed that Doom (1993 video game) is in the following categories:

I'm aware that the open source release of Doom enabled unofficial ports that could be played on high-end Amigas with additional expansion hardware, and I can see the logic that goes "if it runs (to any degree) on an Amiga (of any kind), then it's an Amiga game". But I find that logic too reductive, and the resulting categorisation to be misleading. Per WP:NONDEF, I don't think there are any sources that would refer to Doom as an Amiga game. Furthermore, even if you can run a recompiled version of the open source Doom engine code on an Amiga, you still need the proprietary assets from a copy of the game from one of the platforms it was originally released on. Those assets were never released as an Amiga game (regardless that their file format may be platform-agnostic). In my view, recompiling the engine source code and hacking it together with PC game assets is not enough to say that Doom is actually an Amiga game. The article mentions that Doom has been unofficially ported to oscilloscopes. I don't see the Amiga port as altogether different from this.

This categorisation is particularly problematic because the specific issue of the Amiga not having Doom is often cited as a notable factor in its downfall. Here, for example: Can you run Doom on the Amiga? No, not really, and arguably that was one of the causes for the computer’s demise in the mid-90s as it failed to catch up on the FPS craze of the PC world.

Personally, I think these categories should be removed just on the basis of not meeting the WP:NONDEF guideline, but I wonder if there is consensus for going further, to state that any system's games category should only include games that were officially released for that system. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial ports should not be considered as part of a game's release in the infobox or in categories. If they have been noted by third-party sources, they can be discussed in the prose of the article but we should not pretend they were given the green light by the developers or publishers. Masem (t) 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be obvious. Unofficial ports don't count for categories. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be quite a common issue with FPS games of that era. I am going to remove all such categories. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that a particularly notable "unofficial" port could work for a category, but that would be highly specific to the circumstances. "We can technically make it run on this" is obviously not appropriate for a category, even if it's mentioned in the prose. We're not adding Doom to category:Smart thermostat games ;p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working towards FA on Splatoon 3

As I'm sure some of you may have noticed in the Wikipedia Discord, I'm planning on working on making Splatoon 3 an FA. However I have absolutely no clue what I need to do to get it to FA status. I'm fairly sure that even though it's a GA right now, it's definitely not ready to be an FA. So is there some sort of way I can request feedback on what to do to work on getting it to FA status without actually requesting an FA review? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review is a good place for that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, and yet I recall being told in the Discord server that it isn't good idea. Or maybe they didn't. I have terrible memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How's it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free ebooks from the Golden Joystick Awards

GamesRadar+, the Golden Joystick Awards, and Future Publishing are once again giving away free long-form ebooks for voting in the awards. Here are the direct links to the books:

Reminder for 2022:

and 2019:

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about the Super Smash Bros. Melee article

Hello. I added several {{citation needed}} to the Melee page and also reported a doubt about a source in Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee. These days I will try to improve the page, but it would be great if someone already knows where to find the sources Redjedi23 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redjedi23 Try the custom google search at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redjedi23 Just a note but the first 3 that are marked as citation needed are covered by the preceding references CrimsonFox talk 08:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I moved the references. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also report that in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, another FA, there isn't any references in the "Playable character" section. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, its good you're here and asking questions, but if you keep asking the same sort of questions/doubts, you'll probably keep getting the same suggestions. There's three main ways of handling things.
  1. If you think the information should be retained, find a source and add it to the article.
  2. If you think the information should be retained, but can't find a source, add a "citation needed tag" for now.
  3. If you can't find a source, and/or you don't think its valid info, remove it. People generally won't fault you for this unless people feel you're not trying hard enough to find sourcing for valid information.
You're free to keep asking here, I just don't want you to be bogged down by waiting for responses. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice! Redjedi23 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I added some references in the articles and removed statement where no reliable source could be find. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Giant Bomb source you used is unreliable because it links to their wiki that anyone can edit. We can't source to user-generated content. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I will try to find other references Redjedi23 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redjedi23, for video game source hunting, these two links will be very helpful:
  • WP:VG/S: an article of video game resource classification; what ones are reliable, what isn't, etc.
  • WP:VG/SE: A custom search engine that only shows these reliable sources
Panini! • 🥪 17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After hours of game source hunting, I just found a spanish source about the scrapped characters (Pichu, Roy, Mewtwo, and Young Link): https://uvejuegos.com/analisis/Super-Smash-Bros-Brawl/Aqui-combatimos-todos/3964/15407/7
Unfortunately, I don't know if it is a reliable source but I don't think so since it was used very few times in es.wiki Redjedi23 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (October 16 to October 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

October 17

  • None

October 18

October 19

October 20

October 21

  • None

October 22

Sorry to bother, but it appears Suika Game is missing from this week's report. CaptainGalaxy 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added, sorry- when an article gets created and then moved the same day, the script doesn't always recognize it as a new article. --PresN 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good. Thank you for adding it. CaptainGalaxy 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, SNAAAAKE!! is back! Panini! • 🥪 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh just a new tag of an old article. Don't jumpscare me like that. 😅 Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suika Game, a game that became popular out of the blue around me two years ago and faded in popularity after, suddenly go viral again worldwide - all happening too fast for me to grab an understanding of the situation.
The corresponding article in zhwiki is still "合成大西瓜" (synthetic big watermelon) rather than "西瓜游戏/西瓜遊戲" (suika game). Yesterday I made a distinction between these two games in Wikidata, please double check my work in Wikidata. There are several media coverages on the original "synthetic big watermelon" that I have no idea how to incorporate into the current article. MilkyDefer 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Synthetic Big Watermelon is mention in the English article as being an origin of the gameplay seen in Suika Game. Currently it has notes about the different fruit in that version as well as release date. CaptainGalaxy 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more than that. For example, Chinese Academy of Sciences released an article detailing the internal mechanics that make "Synthetic Big Watermelon" addictive. There are also other reports focusing on the original "Synthetic"'s advertisement fraud. You may want to incorporate these sources about the original game into the current article but the problem is how. MilkyDefer 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the article more talks about the Japanese game. The mentions of "Synthetic" is due to sources delving into the origins of the concept, alongside just a brief mentions on what makes the two versions slightly different in visuals. I don't think more is needed about Synthetic, but if you can think of a good way to incorporate it then you are more than welcome to. CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying that in my home wiki. I will consult my fellow editors for a resolution - keep the two intergrated into one article, or boldly split them up. MilkyDefer 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Dark Forces release date

I'm looking for additional input on the correctness of the release date for Star Wars: Dark Forces. Please see Talk:Star Wars: Dark Forces#Release date. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNET archives

Resolved

I would not be surprised at all if any of you are aware of this problem, and certainly this talk board is aware of CNET having deleted articles earlier this year, but I have just discovered that not all the content from the 2000s was archived, or so it looks. I discovered what appears to be the only evidence that a CNET review for M&M's Kart Racing, a Wii and DS piece of shovelware that has been called one of the worst games of all time, ever existed. Attempts to connect to the review page by reconstructing the link based on cues from the ABC mirror and the CNET website as archived in the Wayback Machine in 2008 and accessing it in the Machine have failed. Granted, I realized I was looking in the Wii section of a list of reviews when I should have been looking in the DS area since the review is for the DS version, but now my access to the Wayback Machine is throttled again, and I cannot continue browsing the archives to dig up the article. Is unsaved CNET content a real problem that anyone here can attest to, or is it just the Machine denying me access again? P.S. No amount of my research on the Internet can uncover answers as to why access to the Wayback Machine periodically goes offline. FreeMediaKid$ 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got access to the Wayback Machine again before getting it cut again. During that time, I was able to ascertain what the URL was. It is http://reviews.cnet.com/M_M_s_Kart_Racing_DS/4505-10068_7-32632053.html. Needless to say, it is a dead link, and apparently a permanent dead one, too. Maybe the review has survived with a later URL, but again, I will not be able to find out until I regain access or someone else finds it. In the meantime, feel free to confirm from your experience whether CNET reviews have been permanently lost. FreeMediaKid$ 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. I had to look inside the ds-games path of the domain and look at a list of websites with that path archived in the Machine, and that is how I recovered it. I have tagged this discussion as resolved. FreeMediaKid$ 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeMediaKid! If it's for CNET, it's also worth checking Gamespot. Here's a live version of the review from there. CrimsonFox talk 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1181943349"