Talk:Absolver

Reverts

@Lordtobi, I haven't removed any content that wasn't already unsourced. Besides the inanity of reverting over dev credits on an unreleased indie game, you've deleted all article expansion. As for why you continue to follow my edits only to revert the date format, I suggest you desist, especially but not only because you know your reverts are out of process. czar 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

People might be thankful for articles being started as you regularly do, but if someone like me at least tries to put valuable input on the article by e.g. adopting standard formatting, working over references, rephrasing things, adding more infobox content, etc., getting into talks with the actual developers to get most out of an "under construction" article, no one should just go there and revert all input to claim their own article again, that is nonsense. Therefore, I pleased you in my edit summary to do multiple smaller edits to safely convey what you are trying to do, not to throw over the entire article. For example, take a look at your changes: They are a mess. Compare them with my edits, which make clear when I changed what and where. After I reverted you, I took content you had produced and inserted it again in a safer manor, but you were not satisfied, instead, you simply reverted me yet again and added one or two sentences to justify your reverting. The only thing I would like to see from you is to make clear what you are trying to do without throwing over other people's edits. Lordtobi (✉) 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Copied from WT:VG: @Lordtobi: I think you're in the wrong here, per WP:DATEVAR and WP:CITEVAR, and Czar's other items are generally better phrased than yours. Please step back from the article per WP:EW. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, not a lot of that addresses the two guidelines I just linked. Please review and then get back to us. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I understand that you don't like bare URLs, but they really are no bother, especially when the article is marked as "under construction" and I plan on either expanding or discarding them. There are plenty of other things and articles to work on than disrupting another editor's writing process. Remember that nothing should be added to the infobox without citation in prose in the article, so coming to an article to pick a fight over the date format and the addition of developers that secondary sources haven't even bothered to name (yet) is unproductive. It should not need explanation that what I'm "trying to do" is write an article—and you know that (1) I know how, and (2) every draft builds from a shorter version with bare URLs and notes and such. But as it stands, the last version you reverted stands much better to scrutiny and verification than the version to which you reverted. czar 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please not change the whitespace of the article? Especially if you're not changing the content in any significant way, whitespace changes to your personal preferences are disruptive. As for "Credit information and Lin/Mac taken directly from chat with developer"—what's your source? You shouldn't be adding information like "Ubisoft Paris" to the article unless you have sources for all of these things, and I really hope you aren't referring to a chat directly with the developer... As for the dev credits, you're assuming that two people are both lead artists based on the dev page. If that information was important, a secondary source would cover it. I'm more ambivalent on this last point, but I really don't see the good in adding it. We're a generalist encyclopedia and not a database of primary source game credits. czar 19:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ubisoft Paris is found in multiple sources, one even has it in the title. And as I said, I did talk to the developer, as I contacted them per email. I enjoy talking to game designers, and things like credits are often a question that comes into play. If you consider direct info from the developer is not enough, we might comment them out and shorten the comment as sources come that support the points given. Lordtobi (✉) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I was already in touch with them and they were amenable to sending free use assets so I just hope it doesn't lead to the contrary. As for talking directly with devs to get information, I would think that you already knew that verifiability is a core tenet of Wikipedia—no, we never use direct correspondence in our articles. If you're looking for a way to help, adding archive links would be helpful. I suggest the following format: |archiveurl=http:// |archivedate=June 17, 2016 |deadurl=no czar 19:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Datevar

That said, above, since this is a French-developed game, my opinion is that the datevar should be DMY and not MDY. --Izno (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong national ties to a topic is for topics that are strongly affiliated with a region, an affiliation games rarely have with their develoeprs as products rarely have with their manufacturers... unless you're arguing that something about the game actually has a strong national tie to France and thus to DMY. czar 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATETIES is actually the one, not WP:TIES--but you get the gist. My point is that this is a sensible decider vice "first major contributor", a choice which can overridden by talk page consensus anyway.... --Izno (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am usually for the way WP:DATETIES expresses the usage of mdy and dmy, even if there is no strong national tie. If you could say that WP:DATERET had a strong voice in this discussion, it would have to be mdy, as the first version had two dates in one citation that were actually mdy (or mdy'd ISO dates), however I had overwritten that cite when remaking all available ones for future use, and unintentionally put dmy. As I later checked the top I replaced the {{Use mdy dates}} template with {{Use dmy dates}} as dmy was the only one available. So, does DATERET take effect for this? Lordtobi (✉) 16:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Award nominations

Apart from the two awards Absolver won, it was nominated for "Best of Show" by PC Gamer and The Games Machine, "Best of E3" by IGN and Gaming Trend, "Unreal Underdog" ("developers who push the limits") for an Unreal Engine game by GamesBeat. However, I am unsure how to write it out properly, as the preceding sentence here is pretty cluttered. I am currently also not very able to find sources for all. PC Gamer does not list nominations AFAIK, IGN does not list Absolver under nominees, Gaming Trend and The Games Machine happen to not have any awards-related article (yet). Only for GamesBeat, I could find the nomination at the same page where Absolver's win over Killer App Killer was listed, here. If this is verifyable enough, the fourth iteration in the "Devolver Behind the Schemes @ E3" series of videos on Devolver Digital's YouTube channel displays all the awards from 1:47 to 1:50, together with Olivier Gaertner, see here. How are we gonna implement this properly? Lordtobi (✉) 19:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can help look for sources, but if there are none, it isn't worth mentioning. (Gaming Trend is not a reliable source, so we wouldn't list it.) Probably best to just write this out in a table before putting it in prose (see Lara Croft Go#Awards). czar 19:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Gaming Trend happens to not appear at all under WP:VG/RS, meaning it was never checked on and therefore is neither reliable nor unreliable (Schrödinger's source). Although I think it is reliable as I have seen other people working with it before and their news being accurate. Lordtobi (✉) 19:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If GT is http://gamingtrend.com/about/, there's no way it's reliable by our standards—it is written by volunteers and has nothing on editorial control. Sending it up for discussion at WT:VG/RS would be a formality. Its WP article was deleted at AfD too. czar 20:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, just because a source is not discussed at WT:VG/RS does not mean it that an assessment of its reliability cannot be performed on an article of interest. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dev credits

The dev emailed me with concerns that members of the small team were excluded from the infobox especially while names were repeated in positions ...which is why I thought it was a hassle to fill out the credits in the infobox in the first place. If the individual team members needed to be annunciated, secondary sources would cover them. I think we should remove them accordingly. czar 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The only thing we could cover with a primary source are these six, which are already in the infobox. As long as we cannot source anyone else, we should either leave it the way it is or comment them out for usage once the game is out, as the closing credits may be used to cover it. Lordtobi (✉) 18:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

genre

genre is both "fighting", and "action role playing". fighting should be listed. Caelulum (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Downfall Expansion

https://absolvergame.com/news/absolver-downfall-content-update

A new PvE section was released. It went into mines, and then into underground temples, and eventually went into a gravity-reversed atmospheric area, where you fought a new boss. Updates to PvE included more health, and improvements to AI. This was met favorably by the community.

There was major community backlash to the PvP updates. A huge percentage of the original player base have quit. The changes to PvP have caused a lot of bugs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/absolver/comments/aakzjm/open_letter_to_absolver_community/

Caelulum (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)