Jump to content

Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Short description

@Masem: In referring to your edit summary reverting my changes to the use of {{Short description}} in this article, may I ask what exactly is "too much detail"? I feel that if we're given three lines worth of space to summarise an article's topic, we should be able to use it, especially to describe things such as the creator of a work. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SHORTDES these are to be as brief as possible as they are meant to distinguish the work from any other possible close hits on the mobile client and other uses. It is not like a short abstract, but a very short phrase of what the topic is, with ~40 characters as the goal. There's no need to ID authorship at all. --Masem (t) 13:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Leak

Seeing some of the edits being deleted as 'we don't discuss leaks' - is there any reason for this? Surely the fact the game was leaked is notable enough to include? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.33.240 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In the long term most leaks of a day or so really don't matter and we don't really include. The type of leak that we'd include would be something like in the case of The Last of Us 2 where the story leak months ahead of the game's release got some players upset and which led in part to its review bombing, so it had to be mentioned. This leak here did nothing to the game's reception so its not worth the mention. --Masem (t) 17:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Or something like Color Splash in which Nintendo screwed up and accidentally allowed anyone that preloaded the game to play the game 2 weeks early until the mistake was noticed and the option to preload was removed.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

An actual, constructive discussion on genre

I think it's become apparent there is some controversy as to the genre of this game. Some sources have called it an RPG (The Verge, Ars Technica, GameStop, The Independent, Slant, New York Daily News), some are mixed (CNET, RPGamer, Nintendo World Report) while others haven't (Washington Post, Nintendo Life). Seems to me the logical solution is to not lead off with a genre and to instead explain the genre in the second paragraph, alongside the gameplay. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There definitely should be no issue calling it "an action-adventure game with some RPG elements" as that matches nearly all of the sources (particularly the developers' stance), without introducing OR. --Masem (t) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
That's synthesizing sources. We have a ton of sources that straight-up call it an RPG, no holds barred, no qualifications. In fact, it seems to be more than the number that say it isn't. A definitive RPG site, RPGamer, didn't say it's not an RPG, for example - that's pretty big. And basically the only objection I've seen is no traditional EXP system. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we should hold bars here that just because a source is reliable, doesn't mean that what they say is always true. It's true that Nintendo will try to add certain RPG elements to please older fans, but their stance for a while now, is to stray away from the series' role-playing roots, whether or not that stance is good. Tanabe since Sticker Star has been trying to avoid experience points and to just keep providing new experiences to new fans. It is safe to say if we get another game in the series, say 2024, Nintendo will try to further stray from being an RPG Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't judge the genre of a game based off what future games might be in 2024, we judge them off of what they are - and a lot of, if not most sources, indicate it as an RPG. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: While I wasn't using my prediction as a standing point, if it was Nintendo's and Tenabe's word vs internet news websites, there shouldn't be a debate. With Tenabe's want for something new, Nintendo's policies for the series including no unique characters & no mention of role-playing on their websites and also the series only having 2 out of 6 games with a somewhat traditional RPG crtieria, it should be safe to say The Origami King isn't primarily an RPG. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Except it's not safe to say, because most sources label it as one. eShop listings and website ads aren't really relevant. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
But we do need to take Tanabe's statement with a lot of importance here. They developed the game, they know what they were trying to make. That it kept some RPG element to lead some sources to call it an RPG is fine. Not that of the sources you have there, only RPGSite is a game-oriented site that is providing a review. (The gamespot article is an update, its review even speaks to "keeping its RPG elements light"). Again, not saying the other sources are to be rejected, but this is where looking at the sources that actually cover video games 24/7 should be a first priority. --Masem (t) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Their opinion only goes so much. The RPG label appears to be present in a majority of sources; the eShop listing is no more relevant here than for Breath of the Wild, which is listed as an RPG there. The only actual "RPG elements" that seem to be absent are a form of leveling and experience points, both of which have rough analogues in the form of HP up hearts and confetti bag expansion for the former and coins for the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
When RS are not in agreement with each other, I am more inclined to take the stance of the developer, who made the game and therefore, should have the highest credibility among them all. Sources seem to acknowledge the presence of RPG mechanics but agrees that it was not the game's main focus, then "xxx game with role-playing game elements" seems to align with that agreement fairly well. OceanHok (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thats your interpretation of combining multiple sources into one view that isn't shared by them, which is textbook WP:SNYTH. Most sources call it an RPG, without qualifiers. The idea it isn't one because of an eShop listing is silly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
No, that's standard editing practices; using WP:WEIGHT to judge which sources are the more appropriate ones to use. In this case, while we do have a fair number of sources, as I've noted, most that seem to use RPG solely are from sources that do not cover video games as their sole focus, while the VG-centric ones avoid using RPG as the label. Per WEIGHT, we'd want to lean more on those. SYNTH would come into play to say (if there was an absence of any mention of RPG in any source) that the action of collecting coins to buy better equipment it became an RPG. --Masem (t) 16:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
You don't have any evidence of that. In fact, I seem to be the only one who has actually examined the sources. "Action-adventure with RPG and puzzle mechanics" is not what any outlet is describing this game as, let alone a substantial minority or a majority. We go off of what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia editors say. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
And calling it a RPG is even worse because it is a claim that is being actively rejected by some of the RS, which meant that using this as a description is WP:UNDUE. The description was not combining what multiple sources have said, but instead, it summarized what individual sources have said, which is different. If any of the RS states that it has RPG gameplay mechanics, then phrases like "with role-playing game elements" or "with role-playing game mechanics" are true and properly sourced, because this is a fact instead of an opinion from RS. OceanHok (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
By some, not all, and not most. By that logic, "action-adventure" is being actively rejected by the majority of outlets that don't refer to the game as that. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is a news outlet passing word considered the same as the words of the company and developers of the people that made the game? Shouldn't we be trusting the words of the developers more? Also in regards to Breath of the Wild, I honestly believe that was just poor editing. The only mention of it being an RPG is on the Switch version of the American Website. On the actual eShop, the UK website and on the Wii U version of the American Website, there is no mention. Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've seen debates like this where the sources disagree. As a few statements of principle:
    • We should trust third party sources over first party marketing. (Wikipedia:Verifiability)
    • Significant coverage about the contentious issue shows that a reliable source is doing higher quality fact-checking.
    • Passing mentions show less attention to fact-checking, and might just be thoughtlessly repeating first party marketing.
  • Wikipedia is built on reliable third party sources as much as possible. We absolutely do use primary sources (and primary content repeated in secondary sources), but with a lot of caution. We're not a promotional service that's supposed to just repeat whatever a company wants us to repeat. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time that Toa has made the assertion that "a majority of sources call the game an RPG", which is simply not true. I did a far more thorough source analysis here and showed that a majority actually call it NOT an RPG or a game with very few RPG elements. Please stop suggesting otherwise and using it as the basis of your argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The sources however, shouldn't be used to determine what genre a game is. This isn't a Super Smash Bros. situation where Sakurai states his series isn't a fighting game series but everyone else does, because not only does Nintendo market it as such, but Sakurai has acknowledged that it can be seen as such. With Origami King, not only has the developer refused to acknowledge the rpg elements of the game, but even Nintendo refuses to market it as such. As such, if sources are in fact wishy washy of what to call the game as they divert from the company, why are we using them? Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Your analysis is, with all due respect, absurdly lacking. Pretty much all of your sources don't say it's not an RPG - they say it has moved away from some elements.
  • EGM says it is "no discernible way an RPG like the Paper Mario games of yore". Notice the qualifier: like the old games. It's not an RPG in the sense the old games are. It also never once uses the term "action adventure"
  • Game Informer simply says the game lacks the traditional RPG stable of stat-based leveling, not that it isn't an RPG. It also never once says the game is an action-adventure game.
  • GameSpot says "Outside battles, The Origami King keeps its RPG aspects light". This is a bizarre statement given battles are the hallmark of an RPG. The review says it's a fusion of action-adventure and RPG. Regardless, another GameSpot link I mentioned noted it's an RPG, and on the game's main page, the genre is listed solely as RPG.
  • Jeuxvideo says it's "more of an action-adventure than an RPG", but doesn't say it isn't both.
  • Nintendo Life solely associated "RPG" with "has experience points", which is a ridiculous standard. It also never once uses the term "action-adventure".
  • Venture Beat never once uses the term "action adventure"
As I listed in my analysis however - which, unlike yours, included sources from all perspectives - many reviewers outright say it's an RPG, with no qualifiers. In fact, far more than call it an "action-adventure" game. So what are we going by - the majority of sources that call it an RPG, or a minority of a minority that call it an action-adventure? Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Also to add on Axem's point, here are some more sources.

Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Poll for genre

Ok, this is actually driving me around the bend so I want to reach a proper consensus that shouldn't be changed. Below this comment, you can put either Option 1 or Option 2 for the addition of the mention of Role-Playing. If you choose Option 1, then the page will remain as of revision "19:49, 30 July 2020‎" and will say it "is a 2020 action-adventure and role-playing video game". If you choose Option 2, then page will change to the edit made by User:Axem Titanium on "19:26, 30 July 2020‎" mentioning it "is a 2020 action-adventure game with role-playing game elements". By the end of the 7-day period, whatever the consensus is, that will remain the permanent change for this article. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Captain Galaxy Do you mind changing it to Option 1 and Option 2? It's not clear what support and oppose mean in this context. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not even action-adventure. Fights are tactical/light-puzzlish and there is no overworld combat or "action". I'd say straight adventure game with role-playing game elements, which also seems to be a well-supported position found in the references listed below. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Action adventure role-playing game - As shown below with the sources, few label it as solely an action-adventure game (only around half of that which call it an RPG), and far more say it is at least a hybrid or partial RPG than not one at all. Out of the 91 Metacritic sources, 51 label it an RPG or a hybrid RPG while only 14 label it as action-adventure. Virtually no critics labeled it as a puzzle game. The sources are clear here. Action adventure role-playing game solves this issue by labeling it as two most common genres it is labeled as. While RPG should be first, in theory, as more label it as such, it goes second due to alphabetical order. In the lead's second paragraph, the exact nature of the game should be clarified: a large overworld with platforming elements combined with RPG elements like turn-based battles, but lacking the typical EXP progression RPGs typically have. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or the more simple suggestion from Salvidrim. The prior discussion agreed that putting the two genres at the same level is misleading and misrepresents the sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 by my read of the sources. There's lots that repeat the idea that this is an RPG, but most of the sources that do a more thorough fact-checking show a lot more nuance. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Will be reviewing all the sources on Metacritic to see where they fall under the following categories:

Unreliable marked with "*", unconfirmed sources marked with "?"

Action-adventure - 14 ((3 Reliable|5 Unreliable|6 Questionable))
RPG - 25 ((12 Reliable|7 Unreliable|7 Questionable))
Partial RPG/Hybrid RPG - 26 ((15 Reliable|7 Unreliable|4 Questionable))
  • ComicBook.com - No other genres mentioned
  • Cogneccted - No other genres mentioned *
  • Cheat Code Central - No other genres mentioned *
  • HobbyConsolas - Contradicts itself, saying it both is and isn't an RPG.
  • GamesRadar+ - Mentions elements are retained but does not compare to TTYD.
  • WorthPlaying - Game is labeled as action/adventure, but reviewer calls it both an RPG and an adventure game. *
  • Gamer.nl - "Light RPG elements", "not a true RPG"; no other genres listed.
  • SpazioGames - Site labels as "adventure, role-playing game", reviewer says it has "lost much of its role playing role" *
  • VentureBeat - "Like others in this series, The Origami King is a role-playing adventure that has a flat, paper version of Mario exploring a whimsical world. But like more recent releases, Nintendo doesn’t fully commit to the RPG elements." No other genres mentioned.
  • EveryEye - Calls it an "Adventure RPG"
  • LevelUp - Lists genre as "action, role-playing"; reviewer says the series "stopped being an RPG a long time ago and that they are simply adventure games". ?
  • Attack of the Fanboy - Genre listed as "Action Adventure RPG" *
  • RPGamer - Lists as RPG, says it abandoned some JRPG mechanics
  • The Telegraph - "an unusual hybrid of puzzling, action-role-playing and Zelda-esque dungeoneering"
  • GameSpot Adventure/RPG fusion. Site itself labels game as RPG.
  • SMH RPG elements "flimsy" ?
  • Nintendo World Report - Labels game as "adventure", says it pretends to be an RPG and the mechanics are unnecessary.
  • Gamer.no - "Little else other than the battle system that screams RPG here" ?
  • KeenGamer - "Confused RPG-like structure without RPG-like rewards and progression." *
  • ShackNews - Labels game an RPG and not an RPG.
  • DualShockers - Labels game an Action RPG but notes lack of RPG progression. *
  • IGN - Lists game as an RPG but says its RPG elements are "vestigial". No other genres are listed.
  • GameGrin ?
  • ArsTechnica - "Not a traditional RPG" but does group it with RPGs.
  • EuroGamer - An "odd jumble" of RPG and adventure.
  • Vice - "a terrific adventure game trapped inside a crummy JRPG"
Not an RPG - 14 ((7 Reliable|4 Unreliable|3 Questionable)
  • Vandal - No other genres mentioned
  • VideoChums - Mentions no alternative genre, but says the game is as far from an RPG as you can get. *
  • Meristation - "Not a JRPG"; lists "platformer" and "action" as genres. *
  • VGames - "Abandons for the third game in a row the role-playing principles" ?
  • BaziCenter ?
  • GameCrate
  • TrustedReviews - Lacks RPG progression system. ?
  • VG 24/7 Compares game to a "typical RPG"
  • Nintendo Life Not an RPG because it lacks EXP
  • Metro UK *
  • WCCF Tech
  • The Sixth Axis - RPG elements are "Paper thin" *
  • EGM - "in no discernible way an RPG like the Paper Mario games of yore." No other genres mentioned
  • Kotaku - Lists genre as "not an RPG" but says it is "superficially, structured like an action-tinged role-playing game"
Puzzle - 2 ((0 Reliable|0 Unreliable|2 Questionable))
No listed genre - 9 ((4 Reliable|3 Unreliable|2 Questionable))

Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Note that not all the sources used by MC are reliable for our purposes, so this is also not an appropriate exercise. --Masem (t) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    You're more than welcome to pick out the ones that aren't reliable sources, but to say looking at what the sources say is a bad thing doesn't really comport to policy here. We go off what reliable sources say, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    So what are we supposed to conclude at the end of this exercise? It seems like just 27.8% of reviews call it an RPG, whereas 33.3% call it something other than an RPG and 28.9% call it some variant of light RPG/has RPG elements but not an RPG. If we take these numbers as correct, then there really isn't a majority of sources that call it an RPG. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    But all of those numbers dwarf action-adventure, which only a paltry 14 sources called. What that tells me is critics have no idea what genre the game is, which is why we should use both predominant genres. I did the research for Super Paper Mario - same problem. Many called it an RPG or an Action RPG, others a platformer. Ultimately the label is less helpful than explaining the actual gameplay. Toa Nidhiki05 00:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Toa Nidhiki05, Axem Titanium, and Masem, how about we just call it a cross-genre video game in the lead and then describe which genres it is in the gameplay section? I think that may best convey it and resolve the problem, at least for now. JOEBRO64 00:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm absolutely up for this solution, or not even listing a genre at all. My main objection here is to minimizing the RPG elements in favor of action-adventure (ie. "action adventure game with RPG elements"), which the sources don't seem to back up. Toa Nidhiki05 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just write "Paper Mario: The Origami King is a 2020 cross-genre video game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo Switch", and explain its gameplay in the lead. There, you're done. I have no idea why we needed an entire discussion on this minor problem, let alone four massive sections. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with this wording too, but I want to ask if this is also the consensus for Sticker Stars and Color Splash? Gamerguy's tendentious editing persisted in those pages as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll be fine with the wording until the poll I set up is done. While I do like the compromise, I let both the Video Game and Nintendo Wikiprojects know about the poll. If the poll ends in favour of Option 1 or Option 2 then it will be changed. However, if it ends in a draw, then cross genre will stay. Please if you haven't already vote in the poll as it ends on 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC). Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
You prematurely started an RFC with only two options, with an option that isn’t based on actual sources and in fact contradicts them. Given Option 2 quite literally contradicts the majority of sources, it’s not acceptable for an encyclopedia and I will not accept its inclusion. Come on. This compromise here works, just let it go and let’s move on from this dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cross-genre"

I know I'm late to the party, and I'm already regretting commenting, but why are we going for the ambiguous term "cross-genre" when there are just two genres in question, action-adventure game and role-playing video game? The lead, especially the very first paragraph, is supposed to be a summation of the article. What's wrong with making a piped link like [[role-playing video game|role-playing]] [[action-adventure game]], or [[action-adventure game|action-adventure]] [[role-playing video game]]? It isn't exactly a survival horror first-person shooter with role-playing game elements (BioShock) or a third-person action-adventure game with psychological horror elements (Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Also the problem is that "cross-genre" does not really apply in video game space.
A side explanation, but you can see this more on video game genre. The film and other industries have used narrative elements for genres of their works (like "sci-fi" or "romance", but the VG field focused on gameplay simply as that was more defining trait of a game.
So if you look at cross-genre it is geared towards the narrative genre concept - not video game. Video games do not have cross-genres, its not a term. We have games that fit into multiple genres, or we have new genres created out of that (like action-adventure), but the cross-genre is a novel idea here and even worse an original research claim. So this is not really a proper solution at all. --Masem (t) 14:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Soetermans: I don't even how it started, I joined into this yesterday. I think the reason we have a problem, is with how Nintendo treats the series a s a whole. Paper Mario 64 and TTYD are both as we can all agree role-playing video games, however Super Paper Mario deviated and became a 2.5d sidecrolling platformer with and RPG story. Since this point, the developers of the series have gone on record to say they are trying to change the series and try to stray away from the RPG elements in the future, which can be seen in Sticker Star and Color Splash that removed a heavy story, experience points (and no; coins, paint or confetti are not experience points as they are found in the overworld), or really unique characters. Now with this new game, it has continued in this area as turn-based battles are more like puzzles, there are overworld battles, and still no experience points, which even removed a feature from Color Splash that sort of acted like experience points, Hammer Scraps. This has all stemmed into many people claiming that the new games shouldn't be called an RPGs anymore, which by all accounts are even the words of Nintendo as they haven't marketed this game nor the previous 3 games as RPGs, by just marketing them as Action-Adventure. But they do called the first game an RPG. Now with this logic it's likely that we shouldn't be calling these games as RPGs as the developers or publishers don't market it as such, so some people here think we should say that this is just an action-adventure, or an action-adventure with RPG elements. However, other people here insist that it should continue to be called an RPG because many sources and reviews keep saying different things about what the game is, as you can see above. This is the dilemma we are in, one of the dumbest arguments on this website. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
And I could say the exact opposite, that a broad majority of sources say the game is an RPG or a hybrid RPG, while only a small number call it an action-adventure game. Clearly, the vast majority of sources think the RPG factor here is large. And FTR, many sources called Super an RPG or action RPG. Listing the game as a genre that the vast majority of sources do not label the game as while limiting the actual genre (That a majority claim it as) as “elements” isn’t backed up by sources at all. And we go by sources here, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to what makes a game an RPG or not. I’ve offered multiple alternatives: list no genre at all, list both action-adventure and RPG equally (absurdly generous given how few actually used the action-adventure label), or use cross-genre. Any of those are backed up by sources at least far more so that “action-adventure with RPG elements”. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think cross-genre is the way to go. It's a multi-genre game (RPG, action-adventure, turn-based, and puzzle, all at once) so a single genre is not going to make anyone happy. Listing both RPG and action-adventure is WP:SEAOFBLUE and not entirely correct (this has action-adventure elements but it's not a full action-adventure game). Also there's precedence for this with the Sakura Wars articles, as games in that series are labelled cross-genre because there is no one true genre to describe them as. JOEBRO64 19:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm good with that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
In the source analysis YOU DID, the plurality of sources called it a "light RPG" or "has minor RPG elements" (and the majority called it Not an RPG or has minor RPG elements). The RPG factor is NOT large, by your own analysis. Combined with the development team's own approach to the game and Nintendo's marketing of the game, there is a heavy weight against RPG. Noting that it has RPG elements is generous. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Again. A grand total of only three reliable sources outright said it's action adventure. There are far, far more sources that say it's an RPG than that. Not sure how you think it's a good argument when your preferred genre wasn't even mentioned in like 95% of reviews. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with what we have at the moment, but I should add one of those was called RPGSite. I don't know why sites refuse to call it an action-adventure, that seems very bizarre as it is literally on the website, make of that what you will. (*Insert poor journalism arguement here) But one thing I did find interesting was that the sites that called it Action-Adventure are those that have been marked down for being unreliable because they are fan sites, such as "God is a Geek", "Nintendo Enthusiast" and "MyNintendoNews". I don't know if that means anything, but I felt it's worth pointing out. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean if you want to move the goalposts that way, then fine. Just 29% of reliable sources call it an RPG whereas 63% call it not-an-RPG or has minor RPG elements. It's clear from both primary and secondary sources that elevating RPG to the level of "main" genre is inappropriate. It's a secondary/sub-genre at best. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
So if it's a subgenre, then action-adventure must be not even worth noting since it has a fraction of that. Not sure how your logic proves your point here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This isn't really a gotcha. I've never advocated for action-adventure in particular, except as an alternative supported by the dev team, Nintendo marketing, and consensus from the above discussion. I've mainly been advocating against listing RPG as the sole or primary genre. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: I managed to find something in favour of Origami King being a hybrid. Techopedia, a reliable source listed the criteria for a RPG, and while the game doesn't match all the points, it stated below that "Modern and hybrid RPGs do not necessarily have all of the elements, but usually feature one or two in combination with elements from another genre." CaptainGalaxy 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That’s you applying a standard to the game, not a reliable source doing so. And, as seen by our sources above, plenty of sources disagree. Toa Nidhiki05 12:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, my original stance on this debate was to not have RPG as a primary genre, so this is me admitting that I change my stance. Secondly, according to your research above, more sources consider the game to be a hybrid than a standard RPG (12/25 (48%) sources calling the game an RPG that are reliable, 15/26 (58%) sources call the game a hybrid that are reliable). Finally, Techopedia has been used multiple times on Wikipedia to define topics involving tech. CaptainGalaxy 14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, keep in mind that piece is talking about only “traditional” RPGs. It specifically notes that both modern and hybrid RPGs lack some of those five traditional traits. I’d be absolutely fine with language calling it a “hybrid action-adventure RPG”, for reference. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification to participants, Gamerguy94 is indef blocked for disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I read this entire thing. Took me an hour, too. We might not agree on genre, but I know for a fact we CAN agree that Disco Devil is an awesome song. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 01:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation for the First Paragraph

"The game was released on July 17, 2020, and received positive reviews from critics, with many praising the graphics, soundtrack, new mechanics, story, and writing. However, others criticized the combat as unrewarding and, at times, frustrating." The part about it being frustrating seems like quite a bold claim without citation. Is it worth inserting the source where this description was derived from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I marked it for citation needed for now. I was confused on that too. I believe its synthesizing, combining all sources to one statement and general opinion, which goes against Wkikipedia policy. If it happens to not clear up, I'll just remove it. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ledes are not required to have citations as long as the body supports the material, as per WP:LEDECITE. The summary appears to match with the Reception section. --Masem (t) 22:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay, but what about the genre? People have many opinions on what the heck the genre is. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 22:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Nintendo says its an "action-adventure" game, so I guess we could go with that?185.73.65.98 (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Icon description

I get that this was denied a few months ago, but I still think some caption should be added to explain the infobox image. It contains a new character, Olivia, and helping specify what she looks like would make the rest of the article easier to understand. I'd suggest something like "Icon artwork depicting Mario (left) and Olivia (right) in front of Princess Peach's Castle." Scrooge200 (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge200, Well, it honestly doesn't really need a description. Icons for video games normally only have captions if it needs to specify what platform the image can be found (eg. Icon for PS4). I can bring it up to the good article reviewer, however. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 02:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I guess it's allowed. I'll put it in. Le Panini Talk 20:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King/Archive_2&oldid=993035326"