Talk:Bastion (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bastion (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 31, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
April 5, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.

Indie game?[edit]

Quote: "Bastion is an action role-playing video game produced by independent Developer Supergiant Games and published by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment."

How can this be indie game if its published by the biggest media conglomerate in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The developer is independent and not a devhouse under a larger developer (like Chair Entertainment under Epic) or publisher (like Treyarch under Activision). Ergo, the game is considered an indie game. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By that definition half the games published are indie games. Even ID Games would be considered indie developer prior to them being bought out by Zenimax. As far as I know the main criteria that is used in various indie competitions like Indiecade is that game does not use publisher money. I imagine Bastion may have started as an self financed project, but if it received funding by WB Games, end result is a regularly published game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, we "know" when a game is indie. The definition is extremely vague but a combination of developer size, money, project depth, etc. If there's a question we follow sources, and many many call it Indie. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Having a publisher giving financial support is what makes the game non-indie, even if the developer is indie. I'm pretty sure they had obligations and deadlines. In fact, Warner Bros. provided their huge QA department during testing, which can be hardly called indie. Then again, for whatever reason, most of the media calls it "indie", and we cannot really argue against that. It's just one of those times where popular media has twisted a definition that would otherwise not be attributed by those familiar with the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Warner Bros. QA'd the game and did the advertising, but that was it- the devs finished and announced the game before they found a publisher. I'd say they still count as Indie. --PresN 04:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That statement is inconsistent. QA is part of development and the game isn't finished until QA is done, and if Warner Bros did QA that means they paid for QA and certification, as well as support functions like marketing, on top of likely advances paid to SuperGiant. These are all non-trivial costs (probably totaling several times the equivalent salary for core programming) and "independent" in any business context is shorthand for "financially independent". The most you could say about the developers is that they self-funded the game's design and core development. Or more poignantly that the game started as an indie project and intended to finish as one, but then found a publisher serendipitously near the end. However, the size of the developer is not relevant nor is the definition of "indie" vague. To claim that the game is indie in the same sense that e.g. Braid is indie is just wrong by definition and IMO a disservice to developers who actually completed development by risking everything out of their own pocket. If the game received financial assistance from other sources, especially a game publisher that exists for just such a thing, it's a straightforward case of not indie. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a serious lack of understanding what constitutes indie here. A game is not indie just because it has "retro" graphics, you don't just "know" when a game is indie, indie stands for independent, the company or group that made the game must be completely developed, funded, and tested by one company. Bastion is not indie because it has a publisher. Nothing else matters. We cannot post inaccurate information just because it's "popular opinion" or you might as well start rewriting the religion articles as if they are fact. You people should know better by now. I'm removing the reference, I double-checked supergiant's website to make sure they don't refer to themselves as an independent developer, and they do not: "Supergiant Games is a small developer with big ambitions:..." Toxic Ninja (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Your definition is very wrong. The term "indie game" really has no strong definition, but it is generally attributed to having to develop the game without publisher support, but even then that's not a firm definition. Bastion was fully developed by Supergiant's own money before WB came in and offered to publish the game; while WB probably has likely aided some addition development work since, that doesn't affect that the core essence of Bastion was developed under what most consider to be "indie" conditions. Google searching "bastion indie supergiant" gives 100,000+ results, and limiting that to just new at least 100+ items. Given that numerous reliable sources call the game "indie" gives use the proper reasoning to call it indie as well. (And no, just because Supergiant doesn't call themselves indie doesn't mean anything. You're not required to call your company "indie" to be making indie games.) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
So MY definition is wrong, except in the next sentence you claim there is no strong definition. You're clearly posting based off personal beliefs and personal opinions, and strawman arguments; that is not what wikipedia is about. There is a strong definition: "Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams without video game publisher financial support." Supergiant games had a publisher, had financial support, and is therefore not indie. Without WB bastion would have never been released to XBLA or steam, by claiming this game is indie you are devaluing WB's contributions to the game. You are the only person in this entire thread who thinks it's indie, and you have no citations from either supergiant games or WB stating that Bastion is an indie game, you are simply restating what people who also got it wrong said, and that is the kind of brainless conformity that lead to humans thinking the earth was flat and executing people who thought otherwise. I am reverting your edit. If you continue to change it to suit your personal opinion I will be forced to contact a moderator to have you locked from the article.Toxic Ninja (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We go by what sources say (that is the core of WP:V), and the bulk of them claim that Bastion is indie. The only sources from Supergiant or WB that matter would be if they state the complete opposite; instead, they don't say anything in this regard, period, so we use secondary sources to make the determination. The bulk call it in, therefore the game is indie. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources to fall back on here, anything else is basing it on OR and opinion. The game does primarily seem to have been developed as an indie game, Supergiant were just lucky enough to get a hand to polish and widely release it. Яehevkor 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what public opinion on the matter is the game was developed with the assistance of a publisher, if you remove the most basic requirement of being considered an indie game than there are no standards and every game is an indie game. If supergiant could have released the game on their own they would have; they didn't, instead they sought a publisher which means WB was a critical requirement to the release of bastion in supergiant's mind. How can it be considered independent if this is true? Toxic Ninja (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much every sentence there is wrong in some way. 1) It's not public opinion, it's the opinion of secondary reliable sources- we don't care what a gameFaqs forum post says, we care what IGN/Gamasutra says. 2) The "basic requirement" of being an indie game or an indie developer, disregarding for the moment that there's no set-in-stone definition, is that the game was developed by a small team on their own money. Even that definition is complicated- Valve made Portal 2 with their own money, but I doubt you would call it "indie", as the company has passed some nebulous threshold in your mind as being too big. Fez was made by two guys in an apartment over 5 years, but Microsoft gave them money in returns for only publishing on XboxLive- did that make it not indie? Did the Canadian government giving them funding make it not indie? 3) Supergiant could have released on their own. Clearly- it came out on Steam on the PC. Maybe not for the Xbox as easily, but there are a bunch of self-published games on Xbox live. They, however, chose to get WB to publish the game so that it would reach a wider audience, as WB has marketing money and they had none. 4) You seem to be a "strict definition" indie person, but you're just going to have to accept that there are a lot of "loose definition" people out there, and we can't all agree, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned we just look at what the secondary reliable sources call it and go with that. You're going to have to accept that reasoning- it's the basis of pretty much everything on Wikipedia. We're not writing "the truth", as everyone has a different opinion on what that means. We're writing "what can be verified". --PresN 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
By your logic the reference should be removed simply because the term indie developer means absolutely nothing and contributes nothing to the article. It seems by any logical conclusion that the term "indie game" or "indie developer" are nothing more than marketing buzzwords.Toxic Ninja (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that numerous sources call the game out directly as indie is reason to keep the term in the article, even if the definition that these secondary sources use is very imprecise. That is, unfortunately, how "indie" is used within the industry as there is not a standard definition of it. But as long as the bulk of sources use the term (and few, if any, counter that), then we should be using it too. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Except it's not. If many sources said something was the best game ever made would it make it onto wikipedia? Ofcourse not, because that is marketing. Wikipedia is not in the marketing business. The term indie developer has no meaning, it's a marketing buzzword. Without a definition you can call any game an indie game. The term serves absolutely no meaning on wikipedia.Toxic Ninja (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If many sources (reliable) called it the best game ever, we would definitely include that. That's an appropriate summary of secondary sources. The situation would be vastly different if only one or two sources called the game "indie" and no one ever did, that would be giving undue weight to those few sources. But you can't search for info on Bastion without coming across the term "indie", so calling it "indie" is completely fair game. You'll have to accept that there's no hard fast definition of the term , not just on Wikipedia, but across the gaming industry. The only thing that would prevent us from including that would be if Supergiant came out and directly denied being an indie developer (which they haven't). --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Again by that definition every game is indie, "as long as a developer hasn't said explicitly that they aren't indie," I can't think of a single example where that has happened. Steam lists several games games under their indie section which, are not indie, or are they? Lets talk Shank for a second. Published by EA for a majority of it's development. Steam lists it as Indie. Does this automatically make it indie? What if everybody else starts calling it indie because steam did, will it be indie then? Should I change the Shank article to include the word indie game? We're just perpetuating broken telephone by labeling bastion as an indie game.Toxic Ninja (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, you need two things. We need first and foremost a plethera of reliable sources calling the game/company "indie"; we can't assign that title ourselves. The second is that we don't have a contrasting statement from the primary source - the developer - to disclaim this. So here, we have plenty of 3rd party sources calling Bastion and Supergiant as indie - and absolutely no counter statement to that end from Supergiant. Ergo, the "indie" title is appropriate. For Shank, based on sources, I would also say it is indie because sources call it that (not as many as Bastion/Supergiant, but they are definitely in the reliable source category), and even Klei affirms they consider this indie. This is why we can't use a hard definition that you want for indie games, because the industry doesn't have a hard definition. The only thing we can't do is call a game indie when that title has never been applied to the game/developer. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Shank has 5 million results for "shank indie klei" 50x as many "bastion indie supergiant", plethora of sources, and it's still listed on steam as an indie game, give me 1 reason I shouldn't change shank's page to indie game? It's the exact same thing.Toxic Ninja (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why it shouldn't be called indie based on on hits. I'm pointing out that your argument that because EA funding a significant portion of its development period doesn't disqualify it from being an indie game if we have that many hits to back it up, and why sticking to a firm definition of "indie game" simply doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Form the way it looks here it appears to be a conflict between multiple reliable sources and a personal interpretation of a Wikipedia editor not back up by any sources reliable or even unreliable. In that case the choice is obvious, we go with the reliable sources. Also the bit about not mentioning the best game of all time is wrong. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has been called that by many sources, it is in the article and there was a clear consensus to include it when someone suggested that it should be removed.-- (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of "IGN calls OOT the best game of all time" this is a matter of "bastion is an indie game. period." Even in the LOZ:OOT page it doesn't explicitly say it's the best game of all time, it states that it is the opinion of sources X Y and Z that it is the best game of all time. This is the equivalent of changing the first line in the OOT page to "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is an action-adventure video game and best game of all time developed by Nintendo's Entertainment." With or without a source it would still be an opinion, and it wouldn't belong there, just like the bastion page calling supergiant games an indie developer.Toxic Ninja (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, no one else in this discussion has agreed to not use the term indy and I strongly doubt that anyone would support anything like this is a game made by a company said to be indy. Another problem with the last analysis is that while there may be some confusion with the classifying indy games I don`t see it (nor would I guess most people) as being anywhere near as subjective a concept as best game of all time so I don`t see the wording of the OOT article as being relevant to this case. Even if the case did exist there should be a consensus to add such a qualifier since past discussion would strongly indicate that any such addition would be controversial.-- (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Also going against what the reliable sources for personal opinion would be a blatant violation of WP:RS since a personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor should overrule reliable sources especially if there are none to support the position. If there are reliable sources suggesting that this is not an indy game than it can be discussed but without one trying to have personal opinions trump multiple sources would not work because on top of the WP:RS issue it would be a case of WP:OR which is not permitted on Wikipedia either.-- (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Even if this was misguided public opinion we would first need to find a reliable source to bring that up. It should not be Wikipedia's job to do so on its own. If you can find reliable sources suggesting this (form posts, random blogs don't count) feel free to link to them since that would greatly help your case.-- (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
one a related note I noticed that the Supergiant Games article was edited in May to change the infobox from calling them an independent buisness, to Privately held company, should that be changed back?-- (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the "type" field of infobox company has nothing to do with them being an independent developer. --PresN 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Quote: "The game's visual style is inspired by anime..." This is taken directly from the article without a hint of relation. The art style was never related to this by the developers. Any searches on bastion's art style being inspired by anime would show the "source article", copy-pastes from the wikipedia page, or something loosely based off of the wiki. It may have been influenced by anime, but there aren't any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bastion (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: Nice!


In the track listing table it says Ashley Barrett and Logan Cunningham are lyricists but they are the ones who sing/speak during the songs. Can someone who understands tables fix it? (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. --PresN 00:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Added page links. Some may need to be checked/redirected. I try to check what I can but with an article this size I don't get them all.--JZP709 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FAr far far too many links added. We only link the most germane terms, not any word of interest. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

1.7 million copies sold[edit]

In this Youtube video, Greg Kasavin mentioned Bastion has sold over 1.7 million copies. I thought it might be worth incorporating this into the article but I can't really find a suitable place to do so. DragonFury (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already down in reception, but I just added it to the lead as well. --PresN 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)