Talk:Depression Quest

"Low importance video game articles"

It would seem to me like this game's article should be more prominent. There is a lot of buzz going around from journalists, critics and gamers regarding Zoe Quinn and this game. Looking at her article, it seems like this is currently being ignored. I'm not sure of the reason why, however relating to just the game itself I have decided to add reception information (from actual sources and not some string of text added by a 4chan troll) and will do so as more critical reviews from notable sources develop.

Swim Jonse (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do expand the article - anything you do to that end will be greatly appreciated. You shouldn't take the importance grade to mean too much, though. That grade is answering the question, "In relation to the subject of video games as a whole, for all time, ever, how much significance does this particular article have?" Even Braid is only Mid-importance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess the "importance" thing seems odd juxtaposed with what has been going on. Purported hacking, doxing, harassment, lies (from many parties) - all central around this game and its creator, and it grows more viral each day. It's in a state where I would not know how to cover it appropriately and fairly, and a state where certain sources definitely have enough notability to be mentioned and others do not. As such, I have not touched the Zoe Quinn article or anything surrounding the current questions being brought up. I do feel that since this game is coming up often, it is important that information is provided. I would also add images (after obtaining the necessary rights to use them, of course), but this is something I have had no experience doing on Wikipedia. Finally, I'm aware that reception needs to be sourced and was hoping someone would manually supply the reference links because that's also not something I am good at here, with my many years of using the site being mainly correcting grammatical/spelling errors, expanding already cited information and rewording things or removing them if they're too poorly worded to contribute to the article. I'll get to doing that now.

Swim Jonse (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've for a long time felt that there's a strong and pervasive trend of importance-deflation in this project. Personally I got in some disputes on the subject a few months ago, namely that Sonic Adventure should be High- instead of Mid-importance, but that was within our own guidelines - our guidelines, on a wider level, don't allow anything other than the absolute most important genres, companies, and industry terms to be top-importance. Even things like Mario, Tetris, and Pokémon (video game series) are destined to languish at High despite their immense significance and recognizability. When someone as frequently talked-about and (as much as it might hurt to admit) influential as Phil Fish is only Low-importance, we know there's a problem. Tezero (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I would concur that that Fish not being at least Mid-importance is a problem, with Fez' importance independent of him being a jackass (which as far as I can tell has helped contribute to his importance). At the same time, I don't know if Sonic Adventure (the title specifically, not the franchise, which would seem very obviously High-importance to me) is above a Mid-importance category as well. With this thing, that position does not need to be changed at all right now. I was more bringing it into question than anything else, because everything that's happening now with this is an ongoing thing and at some point depending on what continues to happen it may warrant Mid-importance. Swim Jonse (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That brings up an issue called WP:RECENTISM. I think in this case this is likely to demonstrate what the project would consider to be Mid-importance, but we don't really know because news at any given time covers everything, not just what will go on to accumulate lasting significance. And it's worse because there's no specific timeframe after which we can say, okay, this does or doesn't warrant a Mid-importance rating. I suppose, though, that that would come once the initial news has died down and then an article is still written on it once in a while. This is just an unfortunate fact of journalism.

For the record, I wanted Sonic Adventure to be High because it was probably the first sixth-gen platformer, very advanced in graphics and such for the time (granted, lots of time has passed and Sega has put forth no effort to keep it at all current in later ports), and one of the first console games to use online. I can't decide if I still think this is enough for High, but in most other projects it easily would be. Yes, I like Sonic personally (the series is High already), but in this case I feel it might objectively meet the criteria as much as some other games that already carry that rating. Tezero (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bring it up to the relevant Wikiproject, after all, it's their banner. Tutelary (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

More prominent? Please. Let's be honest here, Depression Quest is just another typical text-based game. It's importance is easily comparable to the thousands of flash games already found on the internet. The game is definitely notable due to all the hype it's receiving around Zoe Quinn. But, as a game itself, I can't see a way in which it is objectively remarkable. MichaelWoloszyn (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User reviews on Metacritic

I've removed these, as it's obvious that the overwhelming negativity doesn't reflect actual sincere reviews from people who have played the game, but aggrieved gamerbros jumping on the current bandwagon. If we're not going to mention the shitstorm - which seems wise - then we shouldn't cite the "reviews" as if they're meaningful. TiC ^(talk) 16:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally not in favor of including average user scores on Wikipedia articles, not because I think professional reviewers are immune to immature trends, but because they're so unstable and people could deliberately spam the review column to influence what Wikipedia would have to say. I think it's okay to include a neutral link to the user reviews and let readers draw their own conclusions, though - I prefer erring on the side of more information. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic scores are very common throughout many dozens or hundreds of video game articles, it just seems weird to include it in countless others but leave it out here. Readers know the difference between consumer aggregate opinion and 'professional' review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.210 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

The difference is that the opinion of users is non-notable. We may as well record what people say in forums or Steam comments. We use Metacritic when it reflects what reviewers said in notable, reliable sources. As the Depression Quest metacritic page doesn't include any of those, it isn't appropriate to use it at this time. Euchrid (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Any citation for your claims that opinions of users on metacritic are non-notable? Or that the metacritic page is anything like Steam comments? Or that Metacritic is only to be used on wikipedia when it reflects what notable (this is subjective) reviews said? Anything at all other than "I have said so"? It's simple: Metacritic is on every other Video Game article. I see absolutely no reason not to include it here other than censorship. Someone should add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.74.161 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

How exactly is it fair to cherrypick the positive reviews for the game and ignore the countless negative Metacritic and Steam reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.253.54.30 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Take a look at our guidelines for notability and and reliable sources. We generally don't accept self-published material, or material that anybody can contribute to, such as other Wikis, and (in my opinion) the Metacritic user reviews fall into this category. Reliable sources are ones which have (at the bare minimum) passed through an editor. As far as your accusation of cherry picking, I'd also remind you that it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith in other editors. Euchrid (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the notability guidelines aren't relevant here. They only affect the decision about whether we should have an article on something, not what that article should contain. The reliable sources guideline is the important one here. We usually link to Metacritic because they link to many more professional reviews than we can put in an article (see WikiProject Video games's guideline). However, Depression Quest doesn't yet have any professional reviews, so it isn't useful to include for it from this perspective. And worse, the negative player reviews are a pretty transparent continuation of the harassment that Zoe Quinn has been receiving recently. The biographies of living persons policy is clear that we shouldn't let Wikipedia contribute to the harassment of living people, inadvertently or otherwise. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Stradivarius, I get a bit policy-happy sometimes. Euchrid (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, any insults, valid or otherwise, in reviews don't invalidate those reviews. Rather, the ad-hominem approach is the appropriate one; these reviewers are just random slobs on the Internet whose importance is not acknowledged by outside sources, so we cannot include them. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 or 2014?

I don't think it's correct to say this is a 2014 game. It was available, and received coverage on gaming sites during 2013.

Also, I haven't actually played the Steam version. Can anybody inform if there are any differences between the two versions? 80.111.111.181 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're right: Rock, Paper, Shotgun; GameSpot 1; GameSpot 2. My bad about that.

Unfortunately, I've only played about a minute of the online version and never the Steam version, so I couldn't say. Tezero (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I noticed in ~20 minutes of having played both (it's a very short experience) there are no discernible differences between the game available in 2013 and what just recently landed on steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.210 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Robin Williams

How was this game released after the death of Robin Williams, if it was released in 2003? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The game was released in 2013. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have typed "2013." However, the question still stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

It was released as a Web app in 2013, then via Steam very recently. That's the one that coincided with Williams's death Euchrid (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The article should be edited to reflect that. As it stands now, it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

I've clarified this in the lede and also in the new "development and release" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

I think there should be some mention in the reception section about the excessive negative reviews on steam and meta critic (thanks to the bandwagon effect), but it should be stated they are not necessarily reliable sources for the game's quality. Deku link2 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We can only include material from reliable sources, and none of the player reviews count. We also need to be extra careful in this case, as the large number of negative reviews are part of the harassment campaign against Quinn. We can't let Wikipedia unwittingly aid in that harassment - see the biographies of living persons policy. The reception section does need expanding, though, so please do feel free to add reviews of the game from reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

While I completely understand your point of view, the inherent nature of this means that reliable sources are few and far between. In fact, people are scared to talk about it. People are even scared to talk about the people talking about it in the fear they'll end up like JonTron. While it's 100% true that there is a bandwagon effect (and I don't care if it's retaliation against a purported affair involved in a scandal, you shouldn't leave a review if you're not leaving one for the game) I do not remotely see how in any way, shape or form linking the Metacritic page and acknowledging the state of it is contributing to harassment. It's not citing a specific review. It's not quoting a statement. It's allowing something to be visible so the reader can visit and make up their own mind regarding what is going on. That's all it is.

I would take a look at this page Company of Heroes 2 and its acknowledgement of the Metacritic user score. The "review bomb". Is this suddenly okay simply because it was reported by Polygon? Swim Jonse (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception modifications

Mr. Stradivarius need not read or reply, we know your answer.

I'm going to leave it in the hands of anyone here to edit this article.

Upon a revision of reception information, this was the statement given for the reason "for obvious reasons, player reviews of this game are not currently trustworthy".

For obvious reasons, this site holds neutrality very highly. Of all places that are going to utterly ignore scandals, I didn't expect that this would be one. It hasn't in the past.

I witnessed a lot of edits. Most of them were not constructive. They did not cite anything, they didn't even add information that needed to be cited. They were generally clusters of vandalism, and that sort of thing should be reverted. In adding reception to the game, I tried my best to be fair. Not including ANY information from what players might have to say, I simply linked to the Metacritic page itself. Not a review from someone in particular, just the page. I'm sure someone will come up with a justification for suppressing speech and at this point seeing what this has evolved into, I don't care - what this tells me ultimately is that even the most minute acknowledgement of the other group being fucked in all of this is wrong "for obvious reasons" - though there's effectively very little information, blatant facts that can be processed without having to assume there's a spin, available other than biased detractors from any given side or perspective involving this.

For years Wikipedia would come under fire for being "biased" as a community for operating the way it's supposed to. That didn't stop this site. This was in a state where the site was run in a far less professional manner, albeit one with (what I can observe) a far greater resolve.

So, I'm done. I took the time to focus on an article because I felt it was important, but I don't want to keep observing it. I want to leave and believe it was handled correctly. In a situation like this Wikipedia is the site to hold fairness to the highest degree, but if that sort of thing means player reviews of a game cannot be even mentioned, that Wiki is seemingly gone. I'll try to trust that the people who continue to edit these pages are fair. Much attention has not been given to the more irate publications, which is certainly just, but knowing now that the situation - the Depression Quest situation, the one that had to do with Zoe Quinn - has been tethered to a completely different situation, there's the risk of walking on a neutrality tightrope here.

So good luck with it all. I'm just sick of hearing seeing nonsense on a daily basis. I'm sicking of watching my friends become assholes so they can argue with people who were already assholes. I'm sick of issues being diluted. I'm sick of, as someone who plays video games and has clinical depression, being now peripherally tied to a group of "sexist", "misogynist" variably prejudiced idiots that you can't identify and having to suffer because of it. I'm sick of a dying industry. I'm sick of anybody being harassed. I'm sick of "journalists" who pick up on a situation when they know nothing about it. I'm about ready to quit playing video games all together because of the repeating pattern of things like this. I have no faith in any of them.

However, because this site represents an idea that was so beautifully dreamt, I have faith in the members of this site, and it'd be a shame to for gamers to lose that faith. Swim Jonse (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Swim Jonse: I know you said that I don't need to reply, but actually I might have something to say that you weren't expecting. Now, we don't usually include player reviews because they are not published in what Wikipedia defines to be reliable sources. However, as far as Wikipedia's verifiability policy goes, the only thing we need to source a sentence saying "player reviews of Depression Quest were almost universally negative" is a mention, in one of the sources Wikipedia deigns to be reliable, that says that the player reviews were almost all negative. It doesn't have to be sourced by the player reviews themselves. (And I think I recall seeing a mention of player reviews in a site covering the controversy - don't remember which, though.) The interesting part comes with the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Would it be furthering the harassment of Quinn to mention those player reviews, seeing as they were mostly made as part of the harassment campaign against her? I'm not sure, and there is an interesting discussion developing at Talk:Zoe Quinn#harassment? that might inform the content decisions we make here. Do you think we could cover the player reviews in a way that is still compatible with the BLP policy? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing new to me. I know how the policies work. I could have cited something that stated that and it would have been considered not notable enough or potentially biased. The reason I opted simply to mention the Metacritic score (which I saw as being not inherently volatile at all, certainly not at that time, where I could concur with some of the reviews myself suffering from what the game is attempting to portray, certainly not in the way the page was not mentioned in depth) was simply because like everyone else...we really don't know what's going on right now. At this moment. Due to the nature of the "scandal" and its purported cover-up, due to the people involved on each side of this thing - be them people co-opting something they were never a part of, or overgrown children that hide behind a wall of anonymity and throw tantrums, or those who overlap within these groups and simply don't have any position in all of this - I don't see a truly "reliable source" existing. Not at this stage, at least. Not for a while.

I said that I trust people here will do the correct thing - and I do - whether that involves twisting the policies or strictly adhering to them. I wouldn't be able to answer you as to whether or not covering the player reviews adheres to a certain policy. I've just seen enough occasions where policies are seemingly ignored or subverted by consensus in a talk page or without any notice while the article remains relatively high profile and monitored. It's whatever is in the best interest of us all. I certainly don't think Quinn deserves any harassment. Nobody deserves any harassment, period, and that works both ways - this is what is not being acknowledged.

The one thing I do know for sure is that before the harassment began, there were accusations. There were accusations that had some basis behind them. There were accusations that led to very strange activity regarding those who were accused (less about Quinn, more about what this has to do with Kotaku and co.) and now it's being brushed over in the same way this sort of thing has always been brushed over in the last few years. Once upon a time a 4chan poster decided to be a scummy human being, made a "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game and threw it up on Newgrounds. Now 'gamers' as a whole are horrible, misogynistic human beings, because a small minority of people acted like children. It's an irritating, abhorrent generalization and I don't have the patience to keep up with it anymore. I was editing this when it was about Zoe Quinn, when the current discussion was about her. Now it's not, now it's about the same damn shit we get every three-four months. I feel sorry for everybody, because all of this takes us nowhere, quickly. So if there's one thing to be said, it's this: more people are going to show up (as they have) requesting the Metacritic score is reported. I just want you to ask yourself, truthfully, is that aiding in harassment? Knowing how this site works, knowing that there are certain wikis, certain sites, certain communities very notable to those who play video games that are not even REMOTELY concerned with fairness and are going to try and rip someone like Quinn to shreds, is mentioning the aggregate score on Metacritic truly aiding in harassment? It seems to me like it's just mentioning the Metacritic player score and nothing else, but apparently it's a question everyone needs to stop and think about while editing this article.

I wish you all the best of luck figuring out how to document this well. This is going to boil over really heavily at some point here, and when it does I just want to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its concept. Swim Jonse (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's disgusting that Wikipedia of all places is censoring on this matter, no mention at all of the controversy, it's not harrasment if you point out the facts, which she admitted in part, herself. Mr. Stradivarius has for some reason taken ahold of all that has to do with her. He obviously has a non-NPOV, with so far as to leave out all critics of the game as "trolls" or 4chan raiders. This is the whole point of the scandal! Gaming sites are proven to have ties with her, bringing in a giant conflict of interest. I'm not saying we should witch hunt her, just state that there's a controvery involving her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.78.239 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, baseless assertions like this are just as unacceptable on Talk pages as they are in actual articles. Euchrid (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If I'm biased about this subject, it's a pro-Wikipedia bias. All I'm trying to do here is to make sure that the biographies of living persons policy is followed. That policy comes down on the side of privacy for living people, and on relying on mainstream sources for verification. Poorly sourced, controversial allegations just aren't allowed on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

SINCE my last comment was censored i am going to rephrase it. All positive reviews are not RS as the journalists had a COI with the developer of this game. Retartist (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a {{citation needed}} kind of comment, I'm afraid. And speculation on forums and comment threads does not constitute credible evidence. Also, please remember that the biographies of living persons policy also applies to talk pages - that's why your previous comment was removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

I've had a look, and I'm not sure what sources are considered unreliable given the nature of the content. Would it be possible to have a bit more detail about which sources need to be replaced? - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources (even more respected than the gaming journalism sites involved in the controversy) talking about the subject

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ In it, it cites there was a censorship controversy in Reddit and "perceived radio silence on the part of the press" which "led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play". An alleged DMCA takedown on YouTube by people involved in the controversy (don't want to cite names since, as I said it's alleged.

DDOS attacks on sites against their "game jam" (The Fine Young Capitalists) in itself a feminist game jam.

Aside from this we have the AlJazeera source, and now a Slate source all of them more credible since they're not involved in the controversy Please don't let Wikipedia fall into the censorship

I would put this in the Zoe Quinn talk page but it's blocked, anyway the only thing this game is notable for is the controversy surrounding it 200.59.78.239 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)