Jump to content

Talk:Revolution 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General notability guidelines query

I'm curious as to why this has arisen. The topic has received coverage in numerous press articles pertaining to the game itself and not to the developers
The sources are verifiable
The sources, where possible are secondary. However, where background factual detail on the game itself has been required, this has been supplied by the lead developer in interviews. Such information has been restricted to objective information.
"Independent of the subject" - where facts about the game are required, I've accessed different areas, including reviews (not press releases) and interviews.

Is it a case of not enough 3rd party sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branmacmuffin (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this game meets that notability guidelines at all, and that this page is anything but blatant use of wikipedia for publicity. Given it has yet to be released or played by anyone, it is not important for anybody to know about its sequel either. The entire page should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.224.167 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so full of crap

Talk pages aren't for making personal attacks on the subject. Only actionable comments, based in policy, directed towards improving the article are useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why do you mention only the bought media reviews? Looking at metacritics, that game has a 73 from paid writers and an user score of 3 with 90 negative, 1 neutral and 37 positive. How can an article, that's meant to be objective simply ignore these facts? If that game was written by an unknown developer without a woman desperately putting her victim card when ever possible, it wouldn't even have been noticed like 1000 of other first-try games that have nothing, no technical improvement, no extraordinary graphics or usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.125.36 (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a personal attack. This article is very obviously skewed to give the game a better outlook than what it deserves. Most people who have played the game have criticized it, based solely on the metacritic source you people are using and manipulating to make the game seem better than it is. The article written is very obviously a child of nepotism, and sadly, there are no sensible moderators, who are knowledgeable on the matter, and who care enough, that are willing to fix it. Now just watch, quick to cancel out dissent, you guys will label this comment as harassment, and this encyclopedia will have taken another step toward a more biased, and less factual source of knowledge. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am trying to improve the article. So far I've only found some sources for the Reception section. Would be better to understand what the plot and gameplay is like but I don't know the game since I don't have an iOS device. Might have to watch some Let's Plays so get that information. What I'm saying is fixing this article up to make it more presentable takes time and someone who wants to put effort into it. As well as more coverage of the game which may happen once this game gets released on PC.
I understand that this article is not exactly good. Most articles here aren't. But at least there's a bit of a work in progress to try to make this something to read about. GamerPro64 23:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: Stop using metacritic as a source. Also don't use the Guardian as a source for the reception of the game. The Guardian, in making the statement that you put in the article, only meant to explain what the game was. They are not game reviewers or critics. Just a couple of quick improvements you could make immediately. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you ask us to stop using Metacritic as a source, for this article, is there a particular reason?
The Guardian quote is certainly about the game's reception. Is there a particular reason why the Reception section should only contain reviews? In typical Wikipedia articles about media, the Reception section is potentially much broader. We could rename the section "Reviews" but where would we put perfectly pertinent comments that aren't reviews?
How could we make an article more "factual" by following your suggestion to remove facts?


Finally, please cease personal attacks on the author of this game. It's only because the attacks are blatantly absurd ("nepotism") that you aren't facing sanctions. --TS 00:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Okay. For the MetaCritic idea, I don't think that would work out. MetaCritic is used on a lot of articles here. Might as well not use GameRankings either. But for The Guardian citation, looking at it, you're probably right about removing it. Seems to be more focusing on GamerGate than the actual game. Only found it mentioned two or three times in it.Though if anyone has any objections to it being removed they can take it up here and discuss why it should be in the article. GamerPro64 00:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems Tony and I have different opinions on the use of The Guardian article. The source would be good if it was part of a review. But its instead the writer describing the game. Besides that, it doesn't exactly add much to the article in terms of that quote. But that's just me. I would like to hear User:Tony Sidaway's opinion, though. GamerPro64 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is about Brianna Wu, Giant SpaceKat, and Revolution 60. The paragraph from which the quotation is drawn is specifically about what is new about the game and why it attracted a following. I don't see any good reason to remove it. Arguably all of our coverage of media reception should be in this form rather than direct quotes from reviews, but it's not so often that the mainstream press obliges with such an overview. --TS 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Guess it can remain here for now unless there's an outsiders opinion on this being here. GamerPro64 01:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do a synopsis about the story?,Like for example the background, the characters, the plot, and the endings?.....Coy

That is important to fix the article. Personally, however, it is pretty hard to write this information due to not playing the game so unless someone has a copy of it and can add the information here, its currently unavailable. GamerPro64 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna work on a summary .... Coy

You don't need to play the game to have an opinion on it. Just watch some videos of other people's playing. (Prepare yourself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.134.40 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't for attacks on the topic. Add any reliable material that you may have on the plot, don't lament its absence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Surely the story of the game must be good enough to allow this subpar game to win game of the year, I would think that would be top proirty no? Can someone here please can ask about it, mabye get a copy of the pdf form the source ??.....coy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.6 (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously its been almost a year since this game came out and not one detail plotwise on this raw page. Why is there only external information related to the game?, why is this page required, its just extra information that can be merged with the developers page.....Coy 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.232.8 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of bad looking video game articles on this site. Its nothing special until someone improves on it with the proper resources. If you don't think this page should be on Wikipedia, you can nominate it for deletion. GamerPro64 19:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game is bad Steam gave it a score a negative score out of all the things on steam its declared bad this article has no solid proof of it being good no one who has played it on steam has given it a positive score 80% of players call it bad, hows that for a source?173.89.74.237 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steam didn't give it a score. Those are user scores. And they can fluctuate due to Steam changing how scores work now. Frankly, there isn't much coverage on the release of the title. At best there's this article from Metro that called the art style "ugly". But that's in passing and they didn't even play the game. GamerPro64 04:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_60&oldid=1250078504"