Talk:Bob's Game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Last sentence

The last sentence of the article: "He notes that he is happy that people are motivated by games developed under similar circumstances such as World of Goo and 2D Boy and further back with the humble, one-person beginnings of Tetris and Pokémon, that Nintendo "taking big ideas with small budgets and bringing them to life", as he put it." Doesn't make sense to me - in particular the quote at the end. I can't work out what it is trying to say either! Could someone have a go at changing it? Smartse (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Does [1] make a bit more sense, now? (I probably rushed that last sentence a bit without thinking.) MuZemike 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's better. Smartse (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Is there going to be an article on every video game maker whose game isn't published and has a temper tantrum?--76.120.66.57 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If it gets as much independent coverage as this one then I guess so. Do you know of any similar cases? Smartse (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you make an ass of yourself to the point in which you get significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, then yeah. Remember, people love to watch tragedy. MuZemike 01:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bombardment. All the sources are from the same date. This is a news item, no persistent notability established. Foltor (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They were accessed the same date (which was when I created the article). There are multiple reliable sources that span over the course of months with even more out there. Notability is clearly established. MuZemike 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The {{notability}} tag was placed on the article, I've removed it as the article already has reliable, secondary sources and so the use of this template is inappropriate. Smartse (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

Most of the information was incorrect or severely outdated, missing most importantly the release date of 9/9/09 and the fact that the Protest to Nintendo was a Viral Advertisement. If you have any questions feel free to ask. GBev0213 (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Where is this information coming from? Is any of this information verifiable? MuZemike 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this Twitter post, that still doesn't show anything as Twitter posts are not secondary sources that can be reliable. We cannot include material that is not confirmed by reliable sources independent from the topic. MuZemike 07:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources were from January, before his protest had ended. I'll try to find some more sources, but few sites actually posted news about it being fake. If yopu look at the forum and the information there, you can see that everything I posted earlier was true. His Stage 90 video is the best evidence I have now, I'll see what else I can find. Could I use Bob's forum posts as sources? GBev0213 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say no for right now. Especially since we're dealing with a living person for the most part in this article, we have to be very careful as to what sources we use. As far as the forum is concerned (which I have ignored when I rebuilt the article), we need to be cautious as to what we take from there. For instance, we should not be using posts from members there, even though we could use various announcements from Bob to provide context for what the current sources give. Other parts of the forum (which I didn't know was on there because I only looked at bobsgame.com and not the forum part; normally the main information/FAQ is not on the 'forum' part of the website) may provide some useful Gameplay information, history, and other stuff that could be used. I'll look into the site a little later on and see what's there. MuZemike 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This, from his official YouTube account. Pay close attention to the second half. And the ending.--Arutoa (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The forum is the only part that has been updated at all recently, his posts are the best announcements he's made lately. That and his Stage 90 video should be enough to confirm my edit. GBev0213 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll take a look at it. The big things here are that we maintain a high level of verifability (especially in this case because we're dealing with a living person; we don't to have any poorly-sourced information that may cause harm to the person) as well as neutrality, both of which are the two biggest policies we have here. I can see to an extent why that last edit was reverted in a part because the tone of the article no longer sounded neutral, at least from when I read it. We have to keep articles like this neutral as well as accurate. Again, I haven't looked at the website, yet, but I'll try to when I get a chance. Cheers, MuZemike 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see some stuff from a couple of reliable sources explaining that the events in the development was intended to be viral marketing (Destructoid and Beefjack.com which may or may not be reliable). I'll try to add some of that stuff in there. MuZemike 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is much more up to date now, thanks. One more thing is his announcement of a full release on September 9th, 2009, currently visible on his site's front page. ( Infendo has an article about it.) Hopefully that's enough so that the release date can be changed from canceled. GBev0213 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was wondering where the release date came from. MuZemike 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain viral ad first, then details?

The way the pae is laid out now, the progression of the protest is laid out, followed by the explanation that it was all a viral ad. While this is the order we discovered it in real life, it makes the wikipedia sort of deceptive. Someone reading through could believe that Bob went insane, hates Nintendo, and his room was invaded by the police or japanese mafia. In my opinion, it would make more sense to first explain that it was all just a viral ad, followed by a more specific description of the events. Austonst (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, at least as far as the lead is concerned. The rest of the article is more or less organized as a timeline of events. MuZemike 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of the lead (diff). As far as I can see all of it is covered elsewhere. I also removed this sentence:

"The game received notoriety for Pelloni having worked on the game all by himself, spending over five years and 15,000 hours developing the game."

That's not an accurate description, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what it should say, though, to explain why it really did receive notoriety (to the extent it did). My impression is that it was Pelloni's marketing campaign that received the most attention, but I haven't looked into it very much. EldKatt (Talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly can you be sure his claiming it was a viral marketing ploy wasn't backtracking? In other words, what indication is there that someone who acted likea mentally unstable person isn't in fact mentally unstable? I feel the article should be reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha9beta7 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He is just making excuses for his activity, that's reasonably clear 49.191.199.50 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

remember

Remember that, the story that have the Bob's Game, is not real... the last video made by Robert show that all videos made by him was a show. The Robert's videos has showing how the videos has been made. Nintendo has been acepted his idea, but Robert cancelled the membership. When he said that the game will be realised, he was refered like the game will be really realized, but until now the game never was realized. The Bob's Game web site forums have a several error, and Robert think cut the information of the Bob's Game video game, and use it for separate minigames. Sadly, i hope it wouldnt the end of the Bob's game.--GeoCloaking (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be deleted

So far as I can tell, the article is stained with conjecture, hearsay, and personal accounts that show a bias toward telling a particular side of a story. I'm not even sure how or why this even exists on Wikipedia.

The article needs more oversight, and less Adam Curry. -- John in Saint Paul, MN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.172.39 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Website Redirect from the-nd.com

The website the-nd.com now redirects to bobsgame.com. 121.164.146.126 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted huge amount of irrelevant nonsense

Hi,

I've deleted a lot of irrelevant info from this article.

Thanks, VictoryLap (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up article

In compliance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines I have left this notice:

I am Robert Pelloni, the creator of "bob's game." I have modified this page and added images (mostly from timestamped videos) that support my side of the story, and some supporting text from my biography and Kickstarter. I left almost all of the existing text intact, even though it is mostly irrelevant to the actual background of the game and was very likely intentionally written to portray me in a negative light. I have asked fans and forum members to help clean up this terrible article for several years and it is clearly not going to happen, so I saw no other choice but to improve it myself. It was extremely biased and a very poor representation of what Wikipedia stands for, so it is in the best interest of this community as well. The article should also not refer to Nintendo nearly as much as it does, as the game has now been ported to other platforms for longer than it ever existed on a Nintendo system, so I have removed the Nintendo categories. I will cite all of my sources and may continue improving the article as I organize my website for release of the finished game. I've upgraded the article ranking to B to reflect these improvements. Bobsgame (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This article still needs a a lot of work, and is probably still a ways from "B" status. There are way too many images in the article, for example. The clutter things, and seem to be planed wantonly across the article. Secondly, there's all sorts of issues with the text as well. For example, there should not be a three paragraph direct quote in the intro paragraph. Direct quotes are already supposed to be used sparingly, let along, in the WP:LEAD... Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've rolled back these edits for numerous reasons including excessively long lead, neutral point of view, original research, unnecessarily high count of images, template usage... There's just so many reasons these edits aren't suitable. The edits may have had some valid content but the article was put in such a poor place the edits as a whole could not stand. I suggest making much more minor updates backed fully by reliable secondary sources, especially in view of the conflict of interest. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I probably should have done that myself. "Bobsgame", if you want to fact-correct errors, that's fine (though you need sources to verify the changes, and you can't cite yourself on anything subjective at all), but your massive expansion was not an improvement in the scope of how Wikipedia article's are to be written. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The original article was primarily written by 4chan trolls and defensive Nintendo fans. The information is blatantly biased and much of it does not even source the articles correctly. Many of the images are absolutely necessary because they are the cited evidence needed to corroborate the edits to the article, since the original article content was taken completely out of context from a form of media. It's like putting half of a quote from Fight Club taken completely out of context on Brad Pitt's article in order to portay him as a criminal. It's essentially being used as a tool for character assassination, which is clearly not what Wikipedia should be used for and is not in the spirit of the website. It has provided a tremendous disservice to me for 7 years which I did nothing to deserve. Rolling back all changes is inappropriate and frankly unethical. I have complied with the guidelines and I will continue citing all of my edits. Leave the article as is for now and we can continue to improve it to be accurate and unbiased by discussing it with neutral third parties who are not gamers. Robert Pelloni (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the very reason why we have the WP:COI guidelines - because people can't separate their personal attachment to things they make or events they were part of. Your changes were out of line. I mean, you're not even trying to learn how things work here either. For example, look at how many images are typically in articles. Grand Theft Auto 5, a featured article (the highest rating an article can get) has a massive article, and it has like 4 images in it. Your proposed version had like 30. Not even close. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you show me where the amount of images that should be in an article is specified? Most of the images are necessary because of the existing content of the article, which require visual context. I will try and remove some of them or add more text to the article to space them out more to be more aesthetically consistent with other articles. Robert Pelloni (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:IUP is Wikipedia's image use policy, and WP:VG/GL is the Video Game guidelines, though again, the fact that article's never have 30+ images in them should be proof enough for you. There's also the problem that the tone of your writing does not sound like an encyclopedia. It sounds like a developer's blog or something. Wikipedia is meant to be written around how third party sources document a subject, where your wording makes it rather obvious that you're chronicling this yourself. This is not the place for your to chronicle your personal trials and tribulations on making the game. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's opinion. Let's get some neutral third party admins (more than one) involved in disputing this article and gradually work on improving my contributions until all parties are satisfied. I respect Wikipedia and I intend to comply with the guidelines, but it is clearly not right to roll back all the changes to an obviously biased and incorrect page. This article has already done a great deal of harm. My edits are in good faith and I am able to provide citations for all of them. Robert Pelloni (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your content is so far off base, its not even a close call. You're not going to like how this plays out. I mean serious, how many other articles have you come across that have six images in the intro paragraphs? Or even 2? This is exactly why we have the WP:COI guidelines - you're editing entirely to serve your self interest, and ignoring any sort of policies or guidelines cited to you. And you expect to somehow gain support of experienced editors like Admin over this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the video game guidelines, although I'm still not sure how much of that is suggestion and how much is mandatory. I will attempt to adhere to those guidelines as I continue to work on the article. The image guidelines you referenced don't mention any limit on the number of images. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor and I don't read other articles, so I can't comment on them. I simply got fed up with the blatant inaccuracy of my article and decided to improve it the best I could within the policies I was aware of. There was also a request for screenshots on the article to begin with. Even the logo that was up there was a troll version that was never my official logo, which is why I posted the previous versions of the logo and why they are relevant. I will attempt to remove some of the less necessary images in the upcoming few days. Please leave the article as is for now and we can get multiple neutral non-video game related admins to handle this special case on a point by point basis. Robert Pelloni (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you made the changes, and they have been challenged, so the correct way to handle it would to put it to the old version of the article, and you argue points to add specific content in. As you are the one who is advocating change, the WP:BURDEN is on you to convince the people who object it. You should only make the change if there is WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Right now, there isn't, you're the only one in favor of your changes, while myself and ferret strongly object to your changes. Basically, your approach is backwards from how things are done, which is another reason why your changes keep getting reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please list which changes you object to on a point by point basis? I still have to add citations to my biography quotes which provide necessary context and background to the viral campaign, other than that I think I have already cited almost everything. I am willing to argue each addition, but it is a lot of extra work and it's easier if you just argue the specific additions you don't agree with. Robert Pelloni (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, its your burden to identify the problems of the old version, and the reasons and sources that explain the changes. Beyond that, I've already given you some, which you've refused to address. There's still over 30 images in this article, and six in the intro. Please explain why every single one of these 30 images are necessary. And reconcile the image policies, which, long story short, explain that you're mainly supposed to be using images for concepts that can't be fully expressed with text. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you stop editing this article entirely per WP:COI guidelines. This has now been pointed out to you several times. Use the talk page to request the edits you want and other editors with no attachment to the subject will review and implement them. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the development of this game and will take a look on cleaning it up. Shaddim (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Release date?

Can we consider 2016 to be the release date? SharkD  Talk  10:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)