Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WT:VG

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Question: Civilization Series

Hey VG members. There's a discussion at the Civilization V talk page here asking whether a list or table of the playable civilizations should be included in the article (essentially, whether such a list is gamecruft. Would any of you like to give your opinion? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an overview of the fact there are civilizations and the difference choosing a civilization (along with one or two examples tops, to illustrate the concept) is more than sufficient to explain the gameplay element. Salvidrim! 11:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I first commented on that discussion in November 2010! Who re-animated the corpse? - X201 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oosh did, and I must say it was done in good faith and with perfectly valid concerns. :) Salvidrim! 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - How about an article called List of playable civilizations in the Civilization series? If judged necessary, it could include a table like:

Civilization	Civilization	Civilization II	Civilization III	Civilization IV	Civilization Revolution	Civilization V
Americans	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Aztecs	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Babylonians	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes

Someone posted this as a suggestion but it did not garner much discussion; I believe it would be a healthy compromise, and stays informational (what civilizations are playable in the video game series as a whole is interesting information). Salvidrim! 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that that table already exits on the Civilization (series) page. There's no need to make a separate article just for it when you can already just link to the series page..207.237.208.153 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware. Then there is no doubt another full listing is unneeded and redundant. Salvidrim! 02:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion involves several articles(Civilization II, Civilization III, Civilization III: Play the World, Civilization III: Conquests, Civilization IV, Civilization IV: Warlords, Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, Civilization IV: Colonization, Civilization Revolution, Civilization V, and Civilization V: Gods & Kings). It's not so much who re-animated the corpse as it's been ongoing for well over a year now. It's looking very unlikely that a consensus is going to be reached on Talk:Civilization V#Removal of tables of Civilizations. With a new expansion announced it has the potential to get out of hand again (edit warring) so some more outside opinions would be appreciated in hopes of finally stopping the debate. I'm going to add a VG Discussion link to that talk page redirecting here as well (also, hope you don't mind me editing the topic name of this to make the link a bit more specific than "question").Flygongengar (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify things for WP:VG people who are coming to this blind. Its the tables like the one in this (Civilization_V#Civilizations_and_leaders) section and the table in the expansion section below that, that are being discussed. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like in Mario Kart, this kind of table belongs in the general article: Civilization (series), which compares the different Civ games in one table. As for the individual articles of Civ, Civ II, Civ III, etc. -- they do not need their own tables displaying the Civs and their attributes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT. Ah, such a table is already there. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other game examples

Consider Megaman games, such as Mega Man X (video game) and Mega_Man_2. None of the Mega Man games have tables for the Robot Masters and the weapons Megaman acquires from them. Based on this pattern, Civ games should not have a table dedicated towards Civs and their attributes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or even more applicable, SMAC (sucessor of sorts to the Civ series), which is a good article. Factions, leaders and actors are all included in prose, with sources. Table is not such a good idea IMO. Very hard to reliably source, and ends up as gamecruft (if you can include the factions, why not their capitols? and important advances? and....?) .Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no really a need to source the table. All the info contained in the table is from the game itself which acts as the source (and if you cite it you only need to cite it once at the top). Although you could list individual 1st and 3rd party sources just to prove the civ exists, it's redundant and does nothing but clutter the prose or table.207.237.208.153 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, of course you need to source the info. If you need to use the game itself (major primary source issues here) as a reference than that's a key that the info might not be right for Wikipedia. That seems obvious to me as an answer to the question of what is gamecruft and what isn't. The fact that unique units, buildings and abilities aren't gonna be found in any RS's...well, I mean, major red flags there? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between sourcing to prove something exists (a disputed fact) and sourcing to establish notability. There is no need to source the table to prove the fact that the civs exist as the game itself proves that, which is what I was getting at. Everyone of these civs have been mentioned by reliable third party gaming sites, many even highlighted in their own articles especially during the preview phase before the game is launched and a new civ is 'revealed'. One could argue that that establishes notability. I'm not addressing that or arguing either way. My point was that your point that prose is better because citations clutter up tables or is somehow harder to source is invalid.207.237.208.153 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the main source for the table info. would be the game manual itself. in fact, we might as well copy the entire game manual into the Wiki articles. But of course, that's not going to fly. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, exaggerate much? Just because one thing is also mentioned in a manual we should just copy the whole manual? Really? The whole point of gamecruft is the level of detail. Point 2 "Saying that a character can jump, shoot, and drop bombs is helpful to understand the game, but avoid explaining button combinations or cheat codes." Wow, you know, I bet the manual for those games mention they can jump and shoot fireballs, but by your logic we should also copy all the information like how to jump and shoot fireballs...207.237.208.153 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the tables must be omitted. The Wiki articles on the individual Civ games would end up mimicking that of an instructional manual, regardless of notability and the source of information. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here, but wouldn't leaving a table with just the civilizations fall under WP:PLOTSUM and wouldn't have to be cited? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@207: FWIW, I wasn't saying that "prose is better because citations clutter up tables or is somehow harder to source", I was saying that because of the nature of tables, it's much easier to expand them with completely unnecessary information. Not quite as much with prose. I don't mind giving examples of the civs (all may be a lot) but having those in a table will inevitably lead to exactly what we have now, and worse if not checked. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The single table in the Civilization (series) should be enough and acceptable. This discussion involves the tables in the individual Civilization game articles, which lists the Civilizations, leaders, special buildings/units, etc. And that's not necessary. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Time

In order for the (Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on) articles to move forward. This situation must be resolved. To parallel with other games, like Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games, their main articles like Civilization (series) do have a table summarizing inclusion or exclusion of playable characters and civs. Those tables function as summaries. That is fine. However, the individual articles (Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games) do not have lists and tables for playable characters which includes other attributes such as abilities, skills, and other special attributes. Therefore, for the Civ games, the individual tables must not be included in Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. It is time to follow the examples of other games in order to press forward with the Civilization articles. Otherwise, this argument will come up again. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the tables in Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on. But keep the table in the main Civilization (series) article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to comment that your argument is completely flawed. It is completely irrelevant if Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games have or don't have tables in their individual articles. One can counter this by pointing to a ton of videogame articles that do contain lists or tables on their individual pages such as articles in the MvC series, the Tekken series, the Street Fighter series, Total War series (look at Total War: Shogun 2, I see a list of the 9 factions with descriptions of how they differ--is this more "acceptable" because it's in list and not table form?), blah, blah, blah WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even your examples are weak; there's no list of Robot Masters because playable characters could be argued to have more notability than non playable ones, the Mario games rarely feature different playable characters outside of aesthetic difference. I have no problem with wanting to settle the current debate and requesting a vote but please when doing so, put forward an actual argument and not, but this other page doesn't have it, especially when it's not universal across all gaming articles.Flygongengar (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As article listing can indeed be countered by another set of article listing. Yet, I shall take this method one step further. Let's bring in some featured game articles. What better way to cite comparison a set of articles in dispute with those marked as featured. Most of these articles lack any sort of table displaying playable "characters" and their special attributes. So, by the standard among the BEST articles Wikipedia has when it comes to gaming, the use of tables are omitted. Finally, if the tables stay, this argument will resurface in years ahead, just as this argument was fought a couple years ago. As long as this dispute remains, the quality of these Civ articles will remain sub-par. So, I ask this: Can you justify the use of tables (with misc playable character information) in the featured articles? If YES, then I dare you to add character tables to those articles with the intent of improving them. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table or not, all of the civilizations need to be included in each article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check these the featured game articles to see examples of game articles without the need of doing so. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could both find examples of what we think is ideal for a video game article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what is or isn't in other articles. As they stand the list of Civs in the Civilisation articles goes against the WP:NOTGUIDE policy. I repeat policy. So unless there is some exceptional reason why the policy should be ignored and WP:IAR implemented, they have to go. None of the arguments for inclusion have compelled me to back their cause. And as it stands, there is no notability in the list of Civs, its just a list of playable characters and their in-game abilities. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like these tables are references about in-game game play content as much as they are important historic references used in the game. If they were in guide format it would be like referencing actual in-game benefits, etc. But I think that Civ itself is a history lesson and that these tables in particular are of encyclopedic importance because of their contexts. ie. The Arabian ability Trade Caravans links to Silk Road. This is no way provides any context into the game except to say this was an important encyclopedic event the game mechanics drew from. If they need to be abstracted then I suggest doing something like the Characters of Final Fantasy VI page for each version instead of an overall "This Civilization is or isn't X version". Each Version has it's own context that highlights the an important era in a Civilization's timeline and that context is one of Core game play aspects, and almost akin to the 'Plot' in other games. -Azolo (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Tables - Per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTGUIDE don't say an article can't include any information that is in the game manual. It says an article shouldn't instruct someone how to play the game (i.e. by giving specifics about stats, button combos, etc.) like a manual. Second, it doesn't give the same exact information as a guide or the manual. While yes, you can find all the information in the chart in the manual, the manual also gives specific stats of how each ability functions and what each unique replaces (pg. 170 "Trade Caravan +1 Gold per trade route, double Oil"; Came Archer, replaces Knight"). That sort of specific information is what's frowned upon by the wiki guidelines as that's what's more appropriate for a strategy or gaming wiki. None of that info can be found in the chart. The only valid concern of WP:NOTMANUAL is "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". But, the Civ series is in a position where everything in the chart is actually notable in its own right and has its own wiki page as it focuses on a list of historical items instead of a list of random fictional items that no one outside of the game has heard off. So the only real criticism of the policy has room to be debated. Additionally, the exact depiction of a civ differs between games in the civ series. Saying the name of the civ is somewhat meaningless without context. Is that England prior to the United Kingdom? Elizabethan or Victorian England? Many of the games in the series do in fact represent only very specif eras of a civilization, while others go for the more general approach. The capital and uniques in the chart help to define what representation is in the game which can't always be done with a wiki-link (if say the representation primarily spans two eras but ignores the rest) or with the general chart on the series page. Finally, the civs differ greatly in terms of function between games in the series. America plays completely differently in every civ game. The chart shows how representation and gameplay has changed for specific civs between games while not going into the strategy guide/manual detail of statistics and button combos. I'm not opposed to the conversion to prose, however, I believe the chart format still presents it more clearly.Flygongengar (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing semantics with the "unless these are notable in their own right" text. You know that the spirit of that text does not apply to your case. That text means "unless the specific in-game representation is/are notable in its/their own right". You're bending it to fit.

As it stands there is no need to have every Civ listed. They are merely game characters who have in-game special abilities, units, weapons and power-ups. I can't see a case for them being listed in tables or included in the article, it only needs a mention that historical figures are used and each has a special historically significant special ability. I've waited for a case to be made but I haven't seen one that swings me so I'm now voting Delete all Tables - X201 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Tables as per above comment with same timestamp. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion needs winding up. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or replace. There is nothing in WP:NOTGUIDE which aids the argument that lists of characters should be deleted. 9/10 featured articles about games have sections titled "characters," or in the absence of a "character" section a separate page for characters. This also applies to other media such as TV programs and films. There maybe an argument there for deleting the unique units/buildings, abilities, capitals and maybe even leaders, but I disagree with that also, as such details are standard fare for a paragraph about a character in any media. A paragraph for each Civ would obviously be excessive so the tables as they are are already a fair compromise. A significant difference between Civilization and other media is that each of these Civs are not just any characters but each is the main character of the game. Surely any decent encyclopaedia article can afford one line to describe a game's central characters. If they are to be deleted, the information must be presented in some other way. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "characters" of a fictional work. They are simply names - pulled from documented history - to provide context. They could have used completely random names or just colors and alphanumeric identifiers, the game would have been the same. The only association with history is the starting units, technology and unique units, but that's it. As soon as the game sets you out onto the playing field, nothing follows from documented history. This is unlike, say, Assassin's Creed, where the story has been written to try to be as true to possible to historical accuracy. Here, for Civ, it's just placeholders. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are Civilization's equivalent to characters. And while I would argue the opposite that what Civ you pick does matter, it is irrelevant as with the same logic you could replace characters (or countries) in other media with "character A" or "country A" because their names rarely have a large impact on the story. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, we do not HAVE TO present this information at all. Whether or not we present it and how we choose to present it are matters of community consensus, of which there is none. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have to. Just as we don't have to have a page on Civilization in the first place, but I produced a reason for keeping it and I see no reason why it should be deleted. It fits in with policies, completes the article and is not unpleasant to look at. Only the third part of that is my opinion. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to find consensus for a number of sources

I've recently been trying to go through the Checklist at WP:VG/S to concretely nail down WP:VG's stance on the usability of the listed sources in order to enhance clarity. In some cases I've found as many as 12 prior discussions on a source and still there has been no official determination as to its reliability. I'm currently presenting cases for the 9 most frequently-discussed of the no-consensus sources from the first third of the checklist (alphabetically covering sources A-G) at WP:VG/S. I've also presented the case for another source that has never been discussed just to bring the total to a round 10.

Considering how many discussions have occurred over some of these sources in the past it's time a solid determination was finally made. Please weigh in here even if it's just to make a simple up-or-down vote. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've just finished linking up the second third of the checklist (alphabetically covering sources G-O) at WP:VG/S and I've now presented cases for an additional 8 consensus-less but commonly discussed sources (in one case discussed as many as 20 times previously). Please weigh in here even if it's just to make a simple up-or-down vote.

Additionally, I want to thank the three of you who have already provided feedback on one or more of the first 10 sources presented in talk. Since WP:VG's RS determinations are based on discussion and consensus you are helping to legitimize the very underpinning of the whole WikiProject. For those of you who have not yet expressed any opinions, I'd again like to encourage your participation. I believe that it should be fairly simple to review these sources given that I've already done my best in good faith to provide the background research and have located most if not all relevant prior discussions, researched the source sufficiently to give a broad overview, and presented my own best guess as to how we should vote on the issue. All we need now is your opinion. Even if you only have time to review and comment on one of the discussions this will help a great deal. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. I've now linked up all 1000+ sources listed in the WP:VG/S Checklist and I've added an additional 11 sources to be discussed (alphabetically covering O-Z). These 28 (total) sources represent the most commonly discussed of the non-consensus sources, and so presumably they are the most commonly used and/or disputed sources that still have not been given WP:VG's official stamp of approval or rejection. For obvious reasons, these are the most important items to deal with on the checklist.

We've now had 6 people responding to 1 or more of these presentations, with some of you having responded to as many as 9 of the discussions. Thanks to all of you who have helped out so far! And again I urge those of you who have not yet participated to weigh in. My efforts in this exercise have been to present what I understand to be the existing state of consensus regarding the sources based on past discussions (some as old as 2007). So even if someone has no opinions to share regarding the reliability based on the evidence, please at least review my conclusion regarding prior or emergent consensus as this will legitimize my determination. I have done my level best to plumb the discussion archives to uncover all commentary on each source and I'm very open to different interpretations of the prior consensus so please don't be shy. Rather than waiting to express your view on these commonly-discussed sources as an involved editor during a heated content dispute, I'd request that everyone participate in the discussion now as a rational and uninvolved editor. By my last count there are 648 editors watching this page. My minimal goal is to have at least 1% of the page watchers respond to my call, so I need at least 1 more person to take the plunge. If I can't reach this goal, I'll cry. :) -Thibbs (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks to the 1 more respondent, we've reached the 1% participation rate that was my minimum goal so my warm appreciation goes out to all of you who held back my tears. ;) There are still a number of sources that have not been reviewed by even 1 editor, though, so if anyone is interested in making a final push toward determining reliability, please weigh in. Again, these sources have been summarized and the prior consensus has been collated to the best of my ability so it should be a simple matter of reviewing my 1 paragraph of work to legitimize or refute my understanding of the current consensus. If anyone who has not yet taken part in this discussion would like to, please help the project by reviewing even just 1 of the discussions located here.

For reference, and to enhance visibility of the as yet uncommented sources, we need eyes on the following sources:

TechCrunch discussion
Mania/AnimeOnDVD.com discussion
~~Softpedia discussion~~
ZTGameDomain discussion
~~Meristation discussion (a Spanish source)~~
PC World discussion
~~The Video Game Critic discussion~~

There are also a great number of sources with only 1 person commenting (12 such entries by my last count). If you have any opinions on the above or if you just find an idle moment, please give input. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating with strikethroughs. Only 4 left! Thanks for the continued responses. Nearly finished! -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive and its status as a platform (yes, again)

Relevant previous discussions Feb 2011, Jan 2011,March 2009, July 2011,August 2011 and Febuary 2012

Today I was doing some minor clear up on the OnLive article and as the first sentence says "OnLive Is A Cloud Gaming Platform" I appended Platform next to "Cloud Gaming" in the infobox, only for it to be instantly reverted. Considering we have developers, publishers and gaming new sites that refer to OnLive as a platform, why on earth can we not call it a platform on Wikipedia? Heck Eurogamer list it fourth in their list of Platforms and as illustrated in previous discussions I can provide citations for several developers and publishers calling it such.

Titles require specific development for OnLive, It has its own SDK, multiplayer is restricted to OnLive users with other OnLive users only, it enables games to be played on a wide range of devices including Android tablets, they have their own console, store front, social aspects, accessories and all sort of things that you would usually associate with a gaming platform yet there seems to be a continuing divide on if we can or cannot call it such. Heck as referenced above we have people reverting the word "Platform" from an infobox but leaving it in the article. The same issues seem to be occuring on individual title pages too, Borderlands states OnLive under platforms, where as it gets instantly reverted from other titles.

At the end of this discussion last time, the following comment was made: It looks like something solid is forming regarding OnLive, Steam, Gaikai etc. Anyone care to create a passage of text for the guidelines?, that we can vote on and point to in future. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Which seems not to have occurred in any form.

Can we please come up with some kind of consensus on what to do here, while there ARE similarities to Gaikai it is clearly grey label middleware, Steam is a distribution platform with social and multiplayer aspects which prides itself on providing "PC Gaming" (predominantly) and if I buy a retail version of a title I can play with owners who bought it via Steam and so forth. While OnLive is to my eyes (and multiple citable sources) a separate platform.

Adycarter (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Platform" for our purposes of listing within the infobox has to be some piece of hardward; Onlive does not require that, and thus acts at the middleware like Steam. We don't list Steam in a list of platforms unless the game is exclusive to it for PC/Mac versions, as to avoid to giving issues of storefront/middleware favoritism. Hence, we have to treat Onlive as a storefront (even though they do offer a piece of hardware it is not required to use it). --MASEM (t) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means in the actual OnLive article: [1], not in game articles. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much yes. The OnLive article recognising it as a Platform is my desired outcome. The game article infoboxes are a whole other can of worms (and massively inconsistent as it is anyway) and as previous discussions covered considering the "Hardware for Infobox status" argument I can live with OnLive living in "Distribution Method" on most game articles for now. Adycarter (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the OnLive article, "platform" is fine, understanding that the english word "platform" has a broad range of meanings, but includes the hardware platform and the software platform aspects. It's important that just because "platform" is used on the Onlive article to describe it, that point is not used to push OnLive as an entry in "platform" for the infobox template. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Masem. There is not movement from my February position. - hahnch e n 20:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can get consensus on two things. One, OnLive is widely described as a platform, though what kind of platform is rarely if ever rigorously defined. And two, we are operating without a reliable source to define what constitutes a video game platform. It seems a consensus (or maybe just a status quo) was reached at some point to say that a video game platform is a computing platform that videogames run on, but that to me seems arbitrary and ripe for review. Can someone provide an RS for that definition or a rationale for why it cannot or should not be something else? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to go with ButOnMethItIs here. Unless we have a solid set of reliable sources as to the specifics of what we define as a platform there's no reason to keep up with the current borderline synthesis. I realize we need to draw a line somewhere, but if reliable sources recognize it as a platform and not a service (which seems to be what we categorize it as) then we need to follow the industry. --Teancum (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source but how does it factor into the discussion? http://support.onlive.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/178/~/onlive-app-available-platforms ... Here OnLive refers to it's offering repeatedly as a service, available on platforms that are more familiar to what we already use in infoboxes, i.e., operating systems. Also a quick google without verifying the results too indepth has 9 million hits for "Onlive platform", and 32 million for "Onlive service". While I understand some media outlets say platform, this idea of a platform-on-a-platform messes with my head. How do you unravel the inconsistent use of both "platform" and "service" between various RS's and the primary source itself? -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". And there's no reason that services and platforms should be mutually exclusive or that platform-on-a-platform shouldn't be treated as a proper platform. But you do bring up an important point: our reliable sources are less reliable than any of us would like. If our reliable sources conflict or are too vague to be helpful, I think it becomes a matter of editor consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't OnLine be comparable to Famicom Disk System, Satellaview, Steam, PSN, Virtual Console, Nintendo Power (cartridge), etc., in that it's a distribution system on a platform? The platform is "Computer" (or Windows/Mac), the distribution system is OnLive. Just like Satellaview games are SNES games, distributed by Satellaview; they may be exclusive to a specific distribution system, but the platform is the required hardware to play. You cannot play games on OnLive without a computer; thus the platform is the computer, not OnLive. If OnLive was a platform, I could get OnLive and play games on it with no other equipment or software. Salvidrim! 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to this, which is a hard box. A computer is in fact not required, but is one of the many methods to do cloud gaming via the system. I also should publicly state I'm not pro-platform here, but the fact is OnLive is going to be the first of many cloud-based platforms in the future; it's just where things are headed. --Teancum (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "platform" in that context also extends to iPads, Android devices, GoogleTV, certain TVs and BluRay players though, it may be a platform on a platform as someone above me stated, but the platform it runs on is a bit wider in scope that just one platform or "computers". Adycarter (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify a bit: what matters is not the hardware itself, but the OS. In the case of classic consoles, the hardware & OS are not distinguishable (a SNES & a SNES's OS are basically one entity). Thus, in the case of games being playable on one OS, on many physical pieces of hardware (iOS is an easy example), the OS is the platform. Same goes with, say, PSP, or GBA, where many versions of the hardware sport the same basic OS. We never differentiate a game as being playable on DS or DS Lite, because the OS (a DS's OS) is the same; same with PS3 & PS3 Slim. In the case of games being playable on different OS (not different games on different OS, as was common in the 80's), then the platform is Windows/Mac/Etc. As for OnLive, in light of the above, I would say it is a piece of distribution system software for computer games (where the platform still is the OS) AND a cloud-based home console platform; the two products are completely different both in how they work and what they are. Salvidrim! 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the end result is the same? Classing it as two separate things would surely just over complicate this madness even further? Its apparent there is no actual set of rules around what counts as a platform as others have mentioned, I don't see why people can't realise that OnLive is just the first of many "Platforms on Multiple other Platforms" and come up with a sane consistent way for dealing with this and other future similar platforms. Adycarter (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion still taking place? The platform-on-a-platform argument is correct, but pretty much every distribution method can be described that way. Xbox Live Indie Games is a platform-on-a-platform, so is Steam, so is iTunes. OnLive is unambiguously a service, so why not describe it as such? - hahnch e n 13:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are multiple reputable sources calling it a platform, other "platforms on a platform" also tend to be on one platform not a dozen and tend to be just a distribution method rather than something that games requiring porting to, featuring specific platform only multiplayer and friends lists along with specific hardware available just for it (Both the Microconsole and the OnLive Universal Wireless Controller). OnLive has its own hardware, its own OS/User layer, its own porting process, its own SDK, its own market place, its own multiplayer community and is called a "Platform" by multiple reputable gaming sites. Adycarter (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It is unambiguously a service, so why don't you describe it as such instead of repeating this discussion every month? - hahnch e n 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Paint is unambiguously black, it doesn't stop it also getting called paint. I've got involved in this discussion once before, where no outcome was reached so I've raised it again, I'm hardly raising it every month. You say its a service, myself, others in this discussion and reliable sources disagree Adycarter (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that it's a service? Why do you suggest on not-White Paint? I don't think that any reliable source disagrees that OnLive is a service. http://onlive.com, what is the big word next to the name? - hahnch e n 16:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree it is a service, I've never said I do. However the OnLive Gaming Service and the OnLive Desktop Service are both facets of the OnLive Platform, as stated above by the user ButOnMethItIs "If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". IMO the whole thing is a pile of confusion not helped by the fact everything, even the company shares the name "OnLive", All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds. Adycarter (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more confusion to this, it was announced last night that Assault Heroes 2 is coming to OnLive in the next couple of weeks, this game is only available on the 360 and has no PC version. (The XNA version has been ported to the OnLive SDK, as is the case with the upcoming FortressCraft) How do we deal with this in regards to the listing of platforms the game is on? We surely can't list "PC" because its not on the PC or if we are doing that do we have to list every platform the OnLive Platform/Service/Whatever is available on? These two are speculated to be the first of many games where there is no PC version but instead an OnLive version Adycarter (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clarifying point we'll have to figure out is just what the OnLive SDK is. Everyone says it's an emulated Windows service, and that may be right, but I've never actually seen a reference of that. It could be very well that OnLive servers use a custom OS. Anyone know/have a source? *edit* OnLive's VP is quoted as calling it an "open PC platform" on Gamasutra, but that could be simply hardware. *edit 2* Here's the OnLive Developer Conference (seven parts) on YouTube. Kinda long, but it might be insightful. --Teancum (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is an emulated windows service though (which it could well be) that doesn't really address the issues caused by OnLive "exclusive" titles, even if its found to be Windows its not like the titles are *really* on the Windows / PC platform and labelling them as such would surely lead to confusion? I'll see if I can dig any sources up that are definitive either way. Thinking about it whatever the SDK is based onits probably similar to the way the Dreamcast OS was done, the article freely admits it was a customised Windows CE yet obviously the Dreamcast was a platform. Adycarter (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the hardware and software OnLive uses for its backend is not relevant to whether or not OnLive is a platform in its own right. No one disputes that Amazon has a cloud platform and the two are very similar in this respect. Software that's available on Amazon's platform is generally described as being on a "web" or "SaaS" platform and I'm hopeful that a catch-all term might cover OnLive and all of its competitors. If that doesn't happen and we decide to list them individually, lists of platforms will get very crowded. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Everywhere I've looked OnLive personnel describe it as a PC, but they seem very set on not saying it's a Windows-based platform. Regardless they did specify it's rack-mount PC hardware running multiple virtual instances of machines on one physical platform, that much I can confirm from their developer's conference. The Computing platform article that is linked to in our infoboxes specifically states "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." Cloud computing is certainly a part of that. The hardware is present on both ends, with the servers running the software and streaming data to the user. By comparison Steam (since that's what everyone draws for comparison) is a service that allows you to download the game to run on a given platform (Windows, Mac), and thus is only a service. --Teancum (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the infoboxes would become massively cluttered if we do deem OnLive to be a platform, the other services are very much designed as middleware or for demos only, as opposed to including all of the other platform facets mentioned above (SDK, Hardware, Features, Exclusive Titles etc etc) Gaikai for example freely states it is simply using the PC versions on a PC in a data centre with no code modifications where as we know full well OnLive is using a different code base and specific hardware. As mentioned earlier several game articles already merrily have OnLive as a platform in the infobox there just seems to be a lack of consensus around its state and I'm hoping to negate future revert wars by forming a solid rule or at based some degree of consensus around it. Also that explantion of why Steam isn't a platform and OnLive is has to be the best way of putting it I've seen, thank you. Further more I just noticed that the Bastion (video game) article lists Google Chrome in the infobox as a platform, considering that title is also on OnLive it seems strange to me that Google Chrome can merrily be there as a platform yet historically OnLive cannot. Adycarter (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would put forth another example (albeit a bit silly): OnLive's processing hardware is off in some set of offices somewhere in the world, while the player uses their device merely as a monitor, speakers and a gamepad. This is no different than the Xbox 360 in my living room hooked up to my TV, surround sound and with a wireless gamepad. I could, theoretically, store the 360 miles away and run cables back to my house, hooking them up to my TV, stereo and gamepad. The Xbox 360 is still a console, even though the processing power isn't local. It's the same with OnLive -- players use whatever peripheral as their monitor, speakers and gamepad, but said peripheral does not power the game. --Teancum (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this topic seems to be winding down and showing a degree of consensus towards "Yes its a platform", I'm going to start amending relevant infoboxes Adycarter (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too bold, too soon. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it already is on half of them and has been for ages Adycarter (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that you should go and add it to more of them. And since you started this discussion, I think we can all agree that you are not qualified to judge consensus. So stop implementing what you think is consensus, let the discussion run for a few more days and then let someone impartial judge whether there is consensus or not. Regards So Why 13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll stop, Wikipedia doesn't exactly make it easy to know what you are and aren't supposed to do though :/ Last time (as mentioned above) someone was supposed to be coming up with some form of rules or whatever and nothing happened, the conversation died and the talk got archived so I figured I'd run with what we've got so far. Obviously thats not the right plan Adycarter (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. It's called "common sense": Someone actively involved in a discussion on one side cannot impartially determine which side "won" and thus cannot determine consensus correctly. That means that you can argue for a certain outcome but the task of judging whether you were able to sway consensus to this outcome falls to someone not involved. If the discussion is in threat of being archived without consensus being determined, you can always request a neutral third-party to judge consensus, for example at WP:AN. Regards So Why 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps naively I didn't realise these discussions had to be "won", Its listed on some titles, it gets insta-reverted from others, I was told this was the right place to try and get "back up" on if I was acting correctly, people seemed to agree so I figured I was good to edit further pages without the hope of revert wars. I've clearly totally underestimated the amount of bureaucracy required. I'll sit back now and let whatever is supposed to occur next happen Adycarter (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, which is why I used quotation marks. But I think you can agree with me that you, as the one arguing for this change, cannot also be the one impartially judging whether there is consensus to implement this change? Regards So Why 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I grasp that yeah, I just didn't feel I was arguing for a change as much as I was asking for some kind of agreement, if it wasn't on any infoboxes it would be one thing, but as it was under platform on some, distribution method on others and such all I was trying to do was get a consensus on where it should be and some back up that it *should* be for those articles someone seems to defend vehemently and not want it on. From my POV it wasn't an argument for change or a discussion to "win" just me looking for some clarification, I think I say as much above "_{All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds.} " thats really all I was here looking for Adycarter (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject at hand: I don't think OnLive qualifies as a platform in the sense it's used in the infoboxes. Above discussion shows imho a mix-up of the term "platform" as in "what you use to play the game on" and "platform" as in "what you use to get the game". Onlive, despite using a somewhat different method, belongs in the second category, as does Steam or the Xbob marketplace for example. I think one of the reasons for this confusion is that we list "Microsoft Windows" as a platform in the infobox while the correct way would be to list "PC" (maybe in the form of "PC (Microsoft Windows)"). Based on that, I'd propose that we list OnLive, like Steam or similar, in a field called "distribution method" and keep the "platform"-field for the actual hardware platform the game is run on (which would include changing Windows to PC (Windows)). Regards So Why 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of platform that excludes OnLive is not only arbitrary, but without reliable sources and maybe even consensus. It seems that all it has going for it is that it's worked so far. Can we not use a different definition? Should we not? That's the direction this discussion needs to go in. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not arbitrary - I have taken it from our own article computing platform#Hardware examples. We'd just need to agree to adopt this definition as the one to use in the infobox. That also corresponds to the definition of platform as "a particular environment for running other software". Regards So Why 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we adopt that definition? Is it backed by reliable sources? Is it consistent with the way "platform" is used in the industry? As for platform, a definition that includes environments as platforms a la X Windows would make OnLive a platform. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reiterate that this isn't a distributor. A distributor is a software-only application. OnLive runs its own dedicated hardware, to which a given player's monitor/speakers/controller are hooked up. Steam merely serves as a storefront, while OnLive powers the games, thus fitting the definition of a platform: "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." --Teancum (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive is a service that allows you to access PC games on other platforms. It's like the example above where you run your Xbox cables 3 miles across town. It's still an Xbox. You build the games for PC, and then you hook into OnLive in order to grant access through their service. You can wrangle the word platform to mean anything, it can mean Steam or the App Store, but we've limited the infobox field essentially to operating systems and virtual machines. OnLive is neither. On platforms, you can build and run anything you want, and it might require homebrew channels or breaching your warranty, but you have complete freedom. OnLive is not like that, it has significantly more constraints borne purely out of commercial agreements. You can't build anything unless they let you. You can't run anything unless they let you. - hahnch e n 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me somewhere reliable that says OnLive doesn't run a platform-specific operating system. I have never, ever seen it say it runs Windows. It runs PC hardware, but everything I've ever seen emphasizes more that it's custom. Unless you can prove via a reliable source that says it runs someone else's OS then there's no proof. --Teancum (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem awfully certain that OnLive isn't a platform considering that you can't say with much certainty what a platform is. See my comments above. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said a platform was an Operating System (ie Windows) or Virtual Machine (ie Java). I don't have a copy of the OnLive SDK, so I can't tell for certain whether its Windows. Only that it's an SDK and not an NDK. - hahnch e n 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who else says that a platform is an OS or VM such that it would exclude OnLive? If you have neither a reliable source nor a clear consensus on what a platform is in this context, don't you think you're having the wrong conversation? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia has done. It's not me coming up with a radical new definition of platform, but stating what we currently do. This is what we currently do. That is the context. - hahnch e n 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So OnLive isn't a platform because it's not included in our definition of a platform, but we don't actually have a definition of what a platform is, we just have "what we currently do". Is that about right? And from what I can gather, "what we currently do" involves everyone pretending they know what a platform is, lord knows how, and arguing and sometimes editing accordingly. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see edits adding this to Platform in infobox of VG articles, citing this talk as "concluded" in favor of such. This is a really long and rambling section and I haven't followed every edit. Has such a concensus been reached? -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that was my bad and I've been told to stop. Adycarter (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just put OnLive in the distribution field. I said this last time, saying it again. - hahnch e n 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable idea. The previous discussions on infobox decided to use only the method of delivery, e.g. online, dvd, cartridge. Therefore, should we include OnLive, we would say among the lines of "cloud" or something and not mention the specific company that does it. That said, we need consensus that "online" and "cloud" (or something) warrant separate values. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think though that much as there's talk above of "twisting" the definition of platform there is a danger of twisting the definition of distribution method here. Surely the point is to be informative and encyclopaedic and as such relegating the fact that hundreds of titles are available way beyond a "PC" and in multiple cases were completely rewritten for OnLive (RockStar made a gesture based LA Noire for OnLive to offer on Tablets, far beyond the touch overlay used on other titles) to a simple comment of "Cloud" in the Distribution method doesn't seem all that informative. I appreciate OnLive might not meet whatever the current definition of Platform is, but as commented above perhaps that definition needs reviewing and enforcing consistently (such as the fact Google Chrome is showing as Platform on Bastion) Adycarter (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to put "Cloud" in the distribution field. I'm saying to put "OnLive" in the distribution field. Regarding LA Noire's tablet support, you can build a Windows executable with WiiMote support, it's still a Windows executable. - hahnch e n 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chrome shouldn't be listed in |platform= until consensus forms. It's not a fact, rather an exception lacking discussion. It's been a year since a pretty overwhelming consensus not to list OnLive as computing platform. I guess we can pose the same question again, or indeed simply ask what |platform= should list. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome is an OS. It unambiguously meets the platform infobox criteria. Even when on top of another OS, it has it's own native code and sandbox where it does its thing. - hahnch e n 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Google Chrome browser, not Google Chrome OS, as currently in Bastion's article. Of course, the OS is a platform. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of the reverts state "OnLive is PC Only" or similar its not really surprising that consensus was against it last time, and probably will be again there seems to be a general lack of understanding regarding it but that's a whole other story. It would be nice to see a consistent and policed infobox though, the present ones are so incredibly varied from title to title Adycarter (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As varied as the games they're designed for.. a heavily policed infobox would work fairly well for 80% (figure courtesy of the Institute for Studies) of games but the rest would left in the cold. Яehevkor ✉ 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any other solution for you than asking "what should |platform= contain?" without a bias to OnLive per se. If the reason to oppose is "general lack of understanding" then an accompanying argument should educate everyone fairly, such as prominence of other methods besides computing platforms. The you have consensus, and we don't have to judge the issue on things like current usage and reverts, which are heavily subjective. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read so far it appears to me that OnLive does in fact meet the definition of a "platform". The infobox links the "platform" parameter to the article "computing platform". That article definition is as follows: "[a] computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." OnLive is a unique "hardware architecture and a software framework" on which applications can run. Games that run on OnLive are specifically designed to be compatible with the hardware and software; OnLive does not just run the retail version of PC games on remote Windows computers. Specifically, OnLive runs a proprietary virtual machine manager called Olives to manage the various operating systems (Windows- and Linux-based) that it runs on its custom servers (see here). Am I wrong to assume OnLive meets the criteria of a "computing platform"? If it does then it should be listed as a platform in the infoboxes. – Zntrip 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that application cannot run on OnLive if the supporting OS doesn't run. So if Microsoft decides to forbid using Windows, close to all Windows-based games won't run on OnLive at its present form. OnLive cannot be used as a stand-alone, whereas computing platform can. That's the main difference. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to consider the OnLive Micro-Console--71.235.9.161 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An operating system is not the same as a computing platform. I assume that almost all platforms incorporate proprietary software, operating systems or otherwise. The PlayStation 3 probably incorporates non-Sony proprietary software that it could not do without, so how is that different from OnLive? – Zntrip 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if you remove OnLive from equation and the changes they made, then (in this example) there is still PC hardware and Windows OS underneath, which supports the games. You can (roughly speaking) play the game without OnLive. OnLive does not natively support the games, it acts as an intermediately that brings its own adjustments. I wouldn't call my laptop a platform even if I was playing a game remotely on my friend's PC (laptop - hardware, remote viewer - software), even if he had to apply a special patch to get it working. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to provide a reliable source that it runs under someone else's operating system. --Teancum (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hypervisor is unsuitable for the platform field. You do not build apps and executables for a hypervisor, you build it for the OS. - hahnch e n 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive uses a hypervisor, but it isn't in itself a hypervisor. OnLive is also not a cloud PC and it isn't just Windows running remotely. It uses unique software and hardware configurations and is therefor a unique computing platform. Is this last sentence not true? – Zntrip 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My PC uses unique hardware and software configurations. This doesn't make it a platform. The way we've used the platform field in the infobox has been for Operating Systems (like iOS) and Virtual Machines (like Java). I may hook an Windows executable into a variety of SDKs, but its still a Windows executable. - hahnch e n 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive is a service, this is indisputable. OnLive is not defined by its operating system or it's back end or it's SDK. What OnLive offers is a service, it allows you to access games and apps running remotely on any device. I've been asked for a reliable sourcing stating that it isn't an operating system. This is ridiculous. Proponents for the platform designation should have a reliable source stating that it is an operating system. OnLive could completely alter their back end and business model, they could start offering Atari Lynx games run on Atari Lynxes synced up to a webcam. Those Atari Lynx games would be available on OnLive. The Atari Lynx is still the platform. To put OnLive as the platform would be misleading, OnLive is merely distributing the game (or access to the game depending on how you see it), it belongs in the distribution column. Just write "OnLive" in the distribution column, I'm not sure why this is so difficult. I said this last time. - hahnch e n 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what is still confusing me: if a game's platform isn't OnLive, what is it? Would we list "server" or whatever OS the game is running on (which is unknown to the end user)? All computing devices obviously have different hardware and software settings, but to what extent do those differences constitute different platforms? At the end of the day all video game platforms are computers. Also, if virtual machines are included in the platform parameter, then OnLive should be included because it uses a proprietary hypervisor (which is a type of virtual machine) called Olives (see my first comment in the section). – Zntrip 07:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we some day get an exclusive Onlive-title things get even weirder. Should the platform field then be blank? That would mean that the game isn't running on any platform. But that's of course not possible. So something has to be listed in the platform field (and PC may be confusing if there isn't an actual PC version available to buy. And we also don't know if the servers Onlive uses can be called a PC.) --141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um sorry: I of course meant Microsoft Windows and not PC --141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In OnLive's case, the virtual machine sits on top of Olives. But why does this matter? They can change the back end however they want. Just put "OnLive" in the distribution field. - hahnch e n 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if a game is distributed through OnLive, what is the computing platform? – Zntrip 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume it's Windows, but you can't tell unless you have the SDK documentation. But they could change it next week. - hahnch e n 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why that doesn't work. Making assumptions. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Having done more research it fits Wikipedia's definition of a computing platform. It's not a distributor, either. A distributor is only a storefront. OnLive powers the games, regardless of operating system. --Teancum (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't have done that research, because the Wikipedia article states that it includes things like software frameworks, such as Steam. We don't list Steam in the platform field, because our criteria in the infobox is stricter than that - we've generally limited it to operating systems and virtual machines. A distributor is not just a store front, cloud streaming is a form of distribution. - hahnch e n 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This interview is particularly informative. In his answer to the first question, OnLive CEO Steve Perlman states that for some older games OnLive constructs custom virtual machines to run them in. In that case, I don't see how it would be practical to list the platform as anything other than "OnLive". – Zntrip 05:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That video explicitly states that they run the original Deus Ex in a virtualised Windows 98 environment. The Deus Ex executable is a Windows executable. I would place OnLive in the distribution field. - hahnch e n 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A virtualized Windows 98 environment is not the same as Windows 98. OnLive builds custom virtual machines for older games. – Zntrip 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the same. Nothing has changed regarding Deus Ex, it sits on a Windows 98 machine, which sits on top of some hypervisor. If I run Android apps on BlueStacks, it's still an Android app, regardless of where it is and what bells and whistles have been placed around it. - hahnch e n 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note (that a VM is irrelevant) consider that games like The Simpsons Arcade Game are simply the arcade ROMs with an emulator wrapper around them--effectively the same thing. The fact remains that it runs on platform-specific hardware. The virtual machine that runs it doesn't change anything. --Teancum (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to raise this in a further discussion. What caught my eye wasn't The Simpsons, but Virtual Console games which fall into the same bucket. I think we should move that into the distribution field too. The platform field should be developer focused - what was this app built for? The distribution field should be for end users - how can I access this? I was going to start a separate conversation once this one had finished. - hahnch e n 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normalizing to avoid marketing

After a lot of thought there is probably some rationale to include games-via-cloud (eg OnLive) and games-via-browser (eg Bastion on Chrome) in the platform field. What I don't think we should be doing is naming specific services unless they are uniquely offered by one specific service (due to exclusive rights, software requirements, etc.). So, Bastion would be available on Xbox 360 (via XBLA), PC (via Steam), and browser (via Google Chrome); this is as opposed to saying that it is X360, PC, and Google Chrome.

Basically, what I think I'm saying is that for the "platform" field in the infobox, it should take the form <platform> [<service>], where:

"platform" is any of the standard game console hardware platforms; or for personal computer games, the name of the operating system (eg Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux); or for mobile games, the name of the operating system (eg iOS, Android); or "browser" (for web-browser based games) and "cloud" (for cloud/streaming games).
"service" should be used only if the game on that platform is offered through a specific singular service and no other - and this should be an assurance that only that service will ever offer the game (eg FortressCraft, if I understand that situation accurately, would list OnLive; on the other hand, Batman: AC would not since (as best I can tell) both Gaikai and OnLive offer it.) The service shouldn't be added just because that service got the game a month ahead of another, for example.

We can't normalize away specific hardware like the Xbox 360 and the like, but we can normalize when there's more ambiguity in how the game is played at the end to avoid giving any specific service vendor more priority than others. No, we can't get away from the situation like Steam where games that use Steamworks are required to played via the Steam client even if you can buy the titles from other services; the service is still "Steam"), but with the platforms like Onlive, Gaikai, and Chrome, we can do some steps. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would one write OnLive -- "cloud (OnLive)" or separately as "OnLive"? What about multiple cloud gaming platforms -- just "cloud"? Are you saying we list "PC (Steam)", even if available from Desura or somewhere, because of Steamworks? What about when Steam is offered on both PC and Mac, how would that be written? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment Gaikai only offers demo versions of games. But that may change later this year. --141.84.69.20 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steam goes in the distribution field. XBLA could as well, although I'd probably just omit it. I would put OnLive and Gaikai in the distribution field. Chrome is an OS, it runs its own native code, it's not just some SDK. - hahnch e n 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above example for Bastion is Google Chrome browser, not Google Chrome OS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference. The browser runs its own native code within a sandbox. - hahnch e n 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a game is only available via cloud gaming through Onlive, it would be written as "Cloud (OnLive)". If multiple cloud platforms exist, then "Cloud" is all that is said (to avoid store favoritism).

If the game is a PC game that requires Steamworks - which means that you generally are getting a code to plug into Steam to activate the game regardless of which vendor you use - it is "Microsoft Windows (Steam)". Similarly, Battlefield 3 would be "Microsoft Windows (Origin)" since it requires Origin to run and is activated the same way, even though multiple vendors sell the game to be activated on the series. On the other hand, something like the Witcher 2 which has the CD Projekt DRM-free version and the Steam version, would just be "Microsoft Windows"; there's probably lots of indie titles from the various Indie Bundles that also work this same way with a steam code and a DRM-free version from a different service, and in such cases we give no favoritism in the infobox to one service or another. I compare this to how you can buy XBLA games from Amazon but you are basically getting the activation code to dl the game from the XBL service, ergo that would still be "Xbox 360 (XBLA)" for platform.

The Bastion in Chrome OS would be the case where the platform is "Browser game (Google Chrome)" since it (presently) the only browser that supports it. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG newsletter

The 1st Quarter WP:VG newsletter is about as ready as it is to be released, though it is running late as it is. We do not currently have a Featured Editor or any significant announcements or discussion over the past quarter that I have observed. Does anyone have anything to add in before I put it in the actual newsletter and send it out with my bot? --MuZemike 20:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either the A-Class usage RfC or the discussion about modifying guidelines about remakes/compilations might be solid discussions to add. It's a bit short notice for a featured editor, obviously. Salvidrim! 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs has put a lot of work into the request for editors to finalize sources suitable for the project. There is also the 2012 Stubcheck which is now in progress. Someone another 21:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Stubcheck is not a Q1 thing, it'll be a Q2 thing. Thibbs' work, however, has been nothing short of phenomenal and would certainly deserve the recognition. :) Salvidrim! 21:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the kind words. If the newsletter will help to give that project exposure then that would be very nice to include since to date the responses have been limited to only a few of the most die-hard currently active WPVG editors. The Google Custom Search Engine has also been split into a RS-search and a Situational-search and both are updated to reflect current consensus so that may be worth mentioning as the previous CSS is almost 2 years out of date. -Thibbs (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's put the stubcheck on the next newsletter. --MuZemike 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This Newsletter delivery is making me realize how many of the editors around here are on my Watchlist. XD Salvidrim! 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012's TFA

Letting everyone know that Turok: Dinosaur Hunter will be on Today's Featured Article on April 13th. Also, Friday the 13th is tomorrow! GamerPro64 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another sourcing-related request

This one is simple. I have noticed that several of the sources designated on the checklist as RS, Situational, or Non-RS have actually never been discussed in the normal discussion pages (WT:VG, WT:VG/S or WT:RS/N, etc.) Since the checklist is supposed to present consensus-based designations and since there's also been no objection to the un-discussed sources, I am assuming that most of them probably have been discussed and that the designations are accurate. So I propose that we discuss any objections to the current designation all at once in a single thread I started here. If there are no objections to the current designations (which have been in place for many months or years in many cases), then I think we can apply WP:SILENCE and assume that their designations should remain unchanged. Thanks in advance for considering the sources listed in the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Laboratory - First party or second party?

I have become involved in a rather awkward and uncomfortable discussion on a forum with someone over whether or not HAL Laboratory should be viewed as a first party company or a second party company. I cited IGN - [2] and he has cited the HAL Laboratory article. To clarify, the article originally read second party, but was changed for unknown reasons to first party; I have recently changed it back to second party, with the IGN source. He may or may not be participating in this discussion, and if he does, will likely argue that my edits were in bad faith and/or vandalism. So if anyone could provide their input on the matter, that would be great. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion stems from the very definition of what a "second-party developer" is. As this thorough, in-depth company profile & history shows, HAL is not owned by Nintendo in whole nor in part (as Retro Studios or Intelligent Systems is), thus cannot be considered first-party or a subsidiary; however it is being heavily funded by Nintendo and has received a lot of support in exchange for what amounts to working exclusively with Nintendo. Both HAL & Nintendo also own a 50% stake in Warpstar, Inc., which seems to further indicate that despite the channeled funds, the two companies remain clearly distinct entities. At this point we have sources asserting its status as a second-party studio and none as a first-party; as such, the article needs to reflect this consensus and mention the company as second-party. If a conflicting source emerges then we can discuss it at greater length. Salvidrim! 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line between first and third party is pretty clear: a company or studio that is operated as a subsidiary of a hardware company is a first party, while a company that operates independently from a hardware company is a third party. Second party is a little trickier, but in general the relationship entails a nominally independent company with an exclusive relationship to a hardware maker. The difference appears to primarily lie in a second-party having the theoretical power to develop for whatever or whomever it wants to, but making a decision to stick with a specific hardware partner. In HAL's case, the company is not a Nintendo subsidiary but has chosen to work with that company exclusively. That pretty clearly makes it a second party. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second party doesn't actually mean anything. It's ill defined, no one uses the term in a professional context. HAL are an independent company, they just happen to produce work for Nintendo - that's third party. Template:Nintendo_developers should not refer to "second party". These are just merely third party companies which work closely with Nintendo, that there is a "Former second-party" category just shows that these are not permanent. If a company solely creates iOS apps, that doesn't make them an Apple second party. - hahnch e n 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity (2013 computer game)

A user moved SimCity (2013 video game) to SimCity (2013 computer game) over the weekend with the edit summary "See WP:NAME", I moved it back stating our consensus that article should not use "computer game" as a disambiguation term (WP:NCVG - "In addition never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.") and left a note on the user's talk page explaining why. The user has moved it back, again with the edit summary "See WP:NAME", no response to my entry on their talk page. Can someone else please chip in before this turns into a move war. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#SimCity_.282013_video_game.29 has now started. I commented there, suggesting a RM instead. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the specifics from my original post to it. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also commented on the RFD, suggesting that the closing admin should simply deal with the moves and deletions accordingly. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simcity often later releases games for other media devices after development of the original product. Perhaps we shall someday see SimCity (2014 Xbox game), SimCity (2096 Neural network game), etc. For now, this page is not a disambig page, and its only a computer game, so I'm not quite sure what a "disambig" page has to do with anything. JamaUtil (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the original Sim City and the 2013 game both have the same name. So the long-standing WP:VG consensus is that the latter game should be disambiguated from the first game by titling it Sim City (2013 video game). When you put "See WP:NAME" in your edit summaries, could you please explain the specific part of WP:NAME you were referring to please. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: from your comments on here and the RFD page it seems you're equating disambiguation only with disambiguation pages. Disambiguation is also the term used with articles that have the same name. A disambiguation is the bit in brackets in the article name. e.g. Sim City (2013 video game) is a disambiguation from Sim City - X201 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamaUtil, you apparently fail to realize that video game refers to what you think of as computer games as well. In fact computer game specifically states that it "is a video game" right in the first sentence. Also, judging by the title of that article, if anything it should be at (PC Game) rather than (Computer Game) but as there is no other video game with that name, that level of disambiguation isn't necessary. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity (2013 PC game)

The article has now been moved to SimCity (2013 PC game). As you all know WP:VG only disambiguates by platform if its a platform specific remake. This new move is now starting to look like a deliberate attempt to flout guidelines and Wikilawyer the article to any disambiguation other than (video game) which the user seems to have a problem with. What would be the best plan of action to resolve this? A requested move debate, or just try and get it cleared up in the current RFD? either way I think we need admins involved. Thanks in advance for any advice. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of it is deliberate and some of it is not. I think I'm just going to ignore the seeming deliberate nature of the move myself. As for resolving to the correct title, I think that is born out in the RfD and in the guidelines, so I think someone just needs to close the RfD. Which will happen at the normal closing time, I'm sure. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he took Melodia's comment above at face value (Without replying to anyone here or gathering consensus) -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He/She also seems to be confused about what a double redirect is. After each move they've gone through every article, talk page and user page that linked to the old location and changed it. They even altered a closed Move discussion. - X201 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for thinking people would understand English. Silly me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil: Revelations genre change

Several IPs 98.164.126.212 and 98.164.116.249 has removed "survival horror" from the article on Resident Evil: Revelations, claiming that the game is a "third person shooter" only since it is "now much more focused on action and shooting", making the two genres "cancel each other out". Like most games of the series, it is still a survival horror game even if it has a focus on "action and shooting". I really don't want to edit war here. Hounder4 (Talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survival horror and 'action' are not incompatible; survival horror, remember, is a subgenre of Action/Adventure games. There has been a long history of progressively-action-intensified survival horror titles: Dino Crisis 2, for example, introduced the genre to the concept of fighting enemies for points - this later made it into Resident Evil's "Mercenaries" multiplayer mode, while Resident Evil 3: Nemesis introduced live-decision making and special action moves (eg. fighting off attacking zombies; jumping out of the way of explosions). Elsewhere, Resident Evil Survivor; Resident Evil: Survivor 2 CODE: Veronica and Resident Evil: Dead Aim are also first person shooters within the Survival Horror genre, I think should be added. The user's argument that the game is not survival horror is based on personal opinion, and disregards the evolution of the genre (Other than Amnesia, pretty much no Survival Horror title in the past five years matches the original version of the genre).-- OsirisV (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly annoyed that horror games and survival horror games are synonymous nowadays. If the survival aspects are suppressed why insist calling them survival horror? Why not call them just horror games? For example IGN even called F.E.A.R. survival horror and now that is referenced in the survival horror article. Ughh... --Mika1h (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues. The first is that survival horror started in 1992 with Alone in the Dark, 20 years ago, with the first Resident Evil in 1996, 16 years ago. The survival horror movement started at a time when genres as we know them started to fall by the wayside and everything started resembling action adventures and first/third-person shooters. Survival horror can be difficult to define, it is even more so when the archetypes are 15-20 years old yet a lot of people seem to expect survival horror games to resemble these now ancient titles. Despite this, it's slippery nature leads to some questionable instances of the genre being cited, further muddying the waters.

The other issue, and this one drives me up the wall more than the debatable use of survival horror to describe some games, is journalists insistence on using survival horror and horror as being exactly the same thing, or looking to create a new genre (action horror for instance) just because something doesn't comfortably fit within survival horror. Horror games have been around forever, but horror itself is not a defining aspect of any genre except survival horror, it's a theme, like the wild west. Someone another 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They cancel each other out according to who? And if that was the case then the Anon. should have removed both since that's what 'cancelling each other out' actually means, not keeping one and removing the other. There are several sources stating that this particular game harks back to the original REs, more so than 4 and 5, so picking on this particular example is an odd thing to do anyway. If they don't explain themselves then there's no case to answer. Someone another 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift (video game)

I'm wondering if someone could provide another set of eyes at Talk:PlaneShift (video game)#Primary sources and scope of article. Am I out of line here? I'm worried that a relatively obscure game/article will slip under the radar, and I'd like some input, either for or against my comments. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piplup, Prinplup, and Empoleon

Could I get some feedback on Talk:Piplup, Prinplup, and Empoleon? The article has only a few good sources, and even those do not address the topic well enough for notability. I would just merge it, but I think the article creator might protest without me showing a consensus. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a curmudgeon, but isn't that exactly the sort of gameguidey thing that belongs on a specialty wiki like Bulbapedia? Are there any other video game series where each species gets its own article? I can see a need for objectively notable characters like Pikachu and perhaps a few of the most notable characters from within the subculture like MissingNo, Meowth, Togepi, and Mew/Mewtwo,... but Rayquaza?... Wigglytuff?... Victini? I'm not trying to pick on those in particular - we have 90(!) Pokemon species articles currently - but it really seems to be a case where our policies are too lax. Extremely closely related articles like these should have some sort of real world differences between them in order to avoid merge. The only differences between most of these characters is in-universe physical/personality traits and episodes of guest appearance. I frankly can't imagine anyone except diehard fans reading these articles. We should leave minute details like these to specialty wikis and collapse this sprawling morass like we did with Goron, Zora, and Hyrule at "Universe of The Legend of Zelda". I'm in no mood to start a debate about effecting these changes, and I'm confident there are many who would disagree with me (I've probably forever lost favor with WikiProject Pokémon just now), but I just wanted to point out that as a mere casual fan of the series, I find Wikipedia's coverage of it to border on the absurd. -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat agreed. After splitting off most of these characters(which was mainly done by User:New Age Retro Hippie), we realized there is a difference between "a strong Pokemon" and "a strong character". Most of the "reception" is of the gameplay features. Out of the 90 however, 30 probably do still deserve to stand alone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to repeat all the arguments I made at - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_92#Mortal_Kombat_characters, but basically - I think most of our character articles suck. I mean, read the reception section in Lapras and try telling me with a straight face that it's not a game guide. - hahnch e n 00:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]