Talk:Journey (2012 video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Journey (2012 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.
Featured topic star Journey (2012 video game) is part of the Thatgamecompany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
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.


Any plans to expand this article to include information regarding setting? The art direction of the game was a really unique aspect.


Just found this on Joystiq. What with E3 approaching, other such sources may start coming out of the woodwork. Might want to keep an eye out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Journey prototypes and betas, by 1UP. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs the "story" section added to be more complete. However, the gameplay section is without bias and written clearly. If possible, additional sources about the gameplay description from a well-respected gaming site such as would give this section more credibility. Goliathconquerer (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Great changes to the story section. It is well-written and concise. However, I'm not sure if it can stand alone without source material. I know this is written in your own words from playing the game, but is it possible to link somewhere that is a defensible source for the story outline? Even the game website itself may have a description of the story aspect which could be listed as a reference for this section. Goliathconquerer (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Journey (2012 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "The game features the player as a robed figure in a vast desert" Player =/= player character
  • Done.
  • "This shout also transforms dull, stiff pieces of cloth found throughout the levels into vibrant red, affecting the world around them." Affecting the worlds around the pieces of cloth? Not clear what is meant
  • Done.
  • "anonymous players" Plural? The previous paragraph implies that they will meet only one?
  • Done, one other player at a time, so possibly (probably) multiple over the course of a playthrough.
  • "some larger ones if they touch the figure can rip off part of the figure's scarf.[2]" Clumsy phrasing
  • Decide whether it is Flow or flOw (I'd recommend the former)
  • Done.
  • "The soundtrack is heavily based on cello and other orchestral instruments, with numerous cello solos, though Wintory describes it as not necessarily "orchestral" as there is "a heavily electronic aspect to it"." This feels that it's just a repetition of what has previously been said; I think Wintory's description could be brought into the previous few lines
  • Done.
  • "The game won several awards at the 2011 Electronic Entertainment Expo, including those for Best Download Game from, GameSpy, and GameTrailers.[26]" Is it not worth listing all of the awards?
  • Not really, it's other best download game from non-notable sources, and non-notable awards from notable sources. Changed the sentence to not refer to those; in December/January when the yearly awards start coming out the importance of that sentence will presumably be greatly diminished anyway.
  • "especially laudatory of the emotional experience of playing the game, especially" Repetition
  • "especially laudatory" sounds a little breathless anyway.
  • "The Edge review says that" Not the best way of phrasing it. How about something like "A reviewer writing for Edge magazine said that..."
  • Done.
  • Reference 1 lacks a publisher
  • Done.
  • What is SCEE? Definitely reliable?
  • Sony Consumer Entertainment Europe, changed to Sony.
  • Looking at some screenshots online, I'm not sure that the one you've chosen is the most representative of the game. For a game that relies so heavily on visuals, getting it right is very important; how about one showing two players, perhaps with the bright lighting effects of the cloaks?
  • Yeah, I just left what was already in the article; I'll get a better one tonight/this weekend.
  • Alright, new image with two players and a glowing scarf. --PresN 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to take a closer look into the sources, but hopefully this will give you a few things to work on. Seems like a very special game. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I quite liked it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, after a few source spotchecks, I'm happy. This is a lovely little article- once the collectors' edition and the end-of-year awards details have been added to the article, this would probably do well at FAC. For now, however, I'm certainly happy to promote it to GA status. Great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Companions Met[edit]

It's not mentioned here and I can't find a reputable source. I do know, from my own gameplay and others on blogs and forums, that after the credits there is a screen that says "Companions Met". It shows the list of the Playstation Network usernames of those you encountered while playing and their voice symbols. While you don't know when playing, you do get to know who your companions were, in a semi-anonymous way. I also don't know if there is any criteria for showing on this list. I know I played and saw another player in the same level, but didn't interact directly as that player was already moving to the next level. I also didn't see the player's symbol so I could not identify if it was in the list.--WPaulB (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't find a reliable source either, that's why it's not in the article. Pretty sure the criteria is just them appearing in your game, even if they leave right after. --PresN 18:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Indie game?[edit]

While it's not your standard AAA-title, I'm not sure Journey can be classified as an indie game due to Sony's involvement in supporting the game. Even the official website credits SCEA. (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pushing the line, but it's been described as an indie game and won indie game awards, so we're going with that. --PresN 05:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a Sony published game. Definetly not indie. It looks like an indie but indie means independent and Journey is not - 6 februari 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:6:DB00:B0F0:6546:98E8:15BE (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indie reflects mostly on the development side, not publishing. Plenty of indie games have been published by top tier companies but otherwise have not contributed to the development costs. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indie title[edit]

I don't agree with this at all despite what the game industry or independent journalists may consider.

It was solely funded and marketed by Sony Computer Entertainment under contract therefore it does not match the criteria of a "indie game". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daybowbowpepesilvia (talkcontribs) 07:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "indie game" is a vague term used in the industry itself. While "not funded by publishers" is generally part of that, it's by no means a requirement (the same issue occurred over at Bastion). As we have to go by what reliable sources say and not our own feelings, we list Journey as an indie game since it has been recognized nearly universally as such. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is true that there is no widely accepted definition, Journey does not share a single thing in common with what is commonly attributed with "indie" games. The game was even co-developed by Sony Santa Monica, one of the largest studios under SCE. Is that studio considered "indie" as well? Daybowbowpepesilvia (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The editors of Wikipedia do not define what is and is not "indie". Reliable sources have called it indie, it has won indie awards, and that's all there is to it. Sorry if it goes against what you think of as indie, but that's how Wikipedia works- we write based on what reliable sources say. --PresN 18:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please cite these reliable sources that are known for fact checking and accuracy. Daybowbowpepesilvia (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:VG/S for what we consider as reliable sources for video game coverage. Most of the other sources used here are reliable per WP:RS. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that "indie" is such a nebulous non-word which can mean anything, why place it in the lead? It doesn't define the game. - hahnchen 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack CD, grammy[edit]

Just noticed the article contains no mention of the fact that the Journey soundtrack was released in CD format through a publisher called "Sumthingelse Musicworks", if someone wants to incorporate that. Also, the soundtrack was nominated for a Grammy award. Kind of a big deal.

Pstanton (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried searching the page? "Grammy" occurs four times. Serendipodous 08:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Noted that the album was released physically, not just digitally. As Serendipodous says, the fact that it was nominated for a Grammy is mentioned both in the reception section and in the lead. --PresN 01:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sony as Publisher or Co-Developer?[edit]

Per WP:BRD, let's get a discussion going about the recent edit war regarding Sony Computer Entertainment's credit for this game. An IP editor added SCE Santa Monica to the Developer section in the infobox, effectively stating that they co-developed the game. The reference for this was a homepage link to SCE-SM's website, which is not a source for their involvement in the game's production. To my knowledge, there are no sources stating that SCE-SM was directly involved in the production of this game - they were the publisher, and as such get publisher's credits, but not co-developer credits.

If it turns out the original assertion is correct (that SCE-SM actually is a co-developer), then there will be a reliable third-party source that confirms this, and it shouldn't be too hard to find. But keep in mind that a link straight to the publisher's (or developer's) website counts as a first-party source, and those generally do not meet Wikipedia's source policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen SCE-SM stated on doing any development activities for the game (they may have offered assistance and aid in their publishing duties, but that doesn't qualify them for developers). Agreed that we need a source that is not from SCE's page to state that. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that SCE, as part of the contract with TGC, gave them office space in SCE-SM studios, gave them access to QA/internationalization resources that a studio of that size wouldn't normally get, and served as a reference point for technical issues with developing games for the PS3 (moreso for Flower than for Journey). SCE-SM did not, however, as far as I know do any design work on the game or even any development work itself on the game(s). In my mind, and this is reflected in the article, this relegates their contributions to that of publisher, rather than co-developer. If their are sources to the contrary, I'd like to see them. --PresN 05:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP adding this is trying to use this article [1] but as I read that, it describes exactly the function of a managing company, but not a software developer - as PresN states - they providing office space and technical know out, but did not activity participate in code wrangling and the like. Publisher, yes, but not developer, and that Eurogamer article can only support that last point. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
They are listed as a "presenter" on the official TGC website, which I edited back in. The eurogamer reference from someone else that was not a problem for months also states that Journey would not have been possible without the involvement of that studio and their technical prowess which means they had a part in developing the game. I don't see the issue. The official verified twitter for Sony Santa Monica also lists journey as a game they worked on. Edit : you posted the comment above while I was typing this one out,can you please source the contract details that you seemingly are aware of? Sony Santa Monica is a development studio under the SCEA umbrella, they do not provide funding as far as I can tell. Apparently TGC was actually located inside the SCE SM development compound for several years. (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not true. Sure, Journey likely wouldn't have been possible without financial and physical resources from SCESM (which is what the EG article does say). But thoughout the industry, developers work with other developers to talk about technical aspects and get advice from them, but that does not make the second developer a developer for the first game. For example, take the case of the trio of Naughty Dog, Insomniac Games, and Sucker Punch during their PS2 hayday. They worked together to share technical information on the games (hence all three becoming close studios) but you'll note that, for example, only Insomnaic is the developer for Ratchet and Clank then, and same with the other two. That's the same here. SCE SM in this case was a production company, that basically loaned office and technical knownout to thatgamecompoany, but did not actually develop the game. They are properly listed only as the publisher and nothing more. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that very well. So that means the "incubation programme" that had Sony Santa Monica specifically co-developing the three TGC games means absolutely nothing? I think a specific multiple year development collaboration deserves a mention at the very least. I also assume this means I can start removing any mention of Sony Santa Monica in the various game pages where they are listed as a co-developer such as "PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale" and others listed here ? (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
We're not saying that SCE SM is nothing - just that they don't fall into the pigeonhole of "developer" for purposes of the infobox and the lead. Their participation should of course be documented in all games they were involved with, but they are in a role that we normally don't account for in tracking the infobox, short of being involved in the publication of the game. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
174.134: The distinction here is that there's no evidence that SCE-SM wrote any code or provided any art, sound, or other direct resources to the game itself. If their role was purely administrative, as in lending office space, funding, etc., then their role is different. The "Developer" section of the infobox is specifically about who wrote the primary code, who created the primary resources, etc.. Obviously, this is a very large list of people, but in Journey's case, it falls under the single umbrella of ThatGameCompany, and SCE-SM's role is entirely supportive. It's not to say they didn't play a big role in the game's publication, but the credit they get for that is not as a developer. I hope that makes sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Where do you recommend that I credit them on the article then? Publisher? (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Given what we know (and more importantly, what reliable sources say or are likely to say), that makes sense. I'm curious, though - don't we already have that covered in the article somewhere? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Did a quick cursory glance through the article, and it doesn't appear that SCE-SM is credited anywhere in the article (though Sony is more generally discussed in the Development section). It may be appropriate to add it in prose, and if there's an appropriate place in the Infobox for it, there as well. In any event, we still need a non-primary source for it - I'm sure one exists, but the site link you used before unfortunately won't work, since any company could take credit for having published the game. A reliable third-party source will provide the proper verifiability for that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I remember I didn't make any distinction in the article between Sony and SCE-SM, so it's likely that some of the places in development that it mentions Sony might be worth changing to SCE-SM. --PresN 04:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)