Talk:Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher

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

Notability[edit]

I'm not finding significant coverage (?) for this game. I think it would be best redirected to Phoenix Wright citing a good source that discusses how it inspired this game. The only review appears to be The A.V. Club. Closest second is a brief overview at Adventure Gamers. They don't say much apart from how it was inspired by Phoenix Wright. A WP:VG/RS custom Google search only shows a few passing and low-level mentions:

  • (Gamasutra user blogs are user-submitted, not vetted, and not reliable. If being used as a self-published source, it doesn't count for the game's notability, though it can be used as a source with some restrictions.)

All in all, the above mentions are not enough to substantiate a full article, so redirection would be best. czar ⨹ 14:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably already found all of these, but I figured I'd put them here in case any can be used to help justify the article's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • It doesn't help to list a bunch of blog entries. I can copy every hit from Google as well. It helps to curate the sources that are vetted and reliable from the chaff. I'm going to boldly move ahead with the redirect, but feel free to discuss if more substantial and reliable articles appear. czar ⨹ 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar:FWIW, a lot of them aren't blog post reviews. (Although I am aware in some cases blogs are permitted if the writers are vetted so figured I'd include them anyway). About 3 may not be third-party reliable sources but are instead primary sources which provide extra info regarding the game's development and release. The game was also a 2014 entrant in the Main Competition Entrant at the Independent Games Festival. Gamesidestory (whose editor-in-chief "worked for years on several video gaming sites and paper magazines"), Patheos, and 01net.com have all spoken about the film. Please do not misinterpret my efforts as "copy[ing] every hit from Google". This is a concerted attempt to find useable sources. I would argue that these, in addition to the onces you mentioned earlier plus those already in the article, give a reasonable claim to the article's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment[edit]

Three years on, can this article be reassessed @Czar:@Maplestrip:? I always wondered if WP:BOLD-ly redirecting this article to Ace Attorney was the best outcome. There seemed to be enough sources to justify it. I will list a bunch of sources below and we can assess them individually. Please leave a note about each and strike through the insufficient ones. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  1. A 2017 book with considerable coverage (and which didn't exist at the time)
    Scan/quote?
    Firstly the source is freely previewable on Google Books. Secondly unfortunately there are no page numbers, but there are approximately two consecutive pages just talking about the title. Simply type "Socrates Jones" in the search bar to see all mentions pop up. :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    freely previewable on Google Books

    Not in my browser czar 14:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ConnorFallon/20130821/188966/Making_a_Debate_Game_the_Design_Challenges_of_Socrates_Jones.php "The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community."
    This is true... However the member of the Gamasutra’s community who wrote the post is by Conner Fallon, who is the author is the game, thereby making this a reliable primary source.--Coin945 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we were assessing the game's notability based on its significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources? I'd trim down to the sources you actually want to review czar 14:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. http://gameological.com/2013/09/sawbuck-gamer-socrates-jones-pro-philosopher/
  4. https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/25383
  5. https://adventuregamers.com/games/view/25346
  6. https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/29190
  7. https://geektimes.ru/post/278828/
  8. http://cmtoday.cmu.edu/issues/april-2014-issue/columns/last-word/
  9. https://www.pcgamer.com/the-free-webgame-round-up-47/
  10. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/09/22/live-free-play-hard-this-is-where-we-train-our-bubbles-for-combat/
  11. http://indiegames.com/2013/08/browser_pick_ace_attorney-like.html
  12. http://indiegames.com/2013/08/making_a_debate-style_game_in_.html
  13. https://jayisgames.com/review/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher.php
  14. http://randomacc.net/system/browser/bc5.shtml
  15. http://www.gamesidestory.com/2013/12/02/gametest-socrates-jones-pro-philosopher-navigateur/
  16. http://www.igf.com/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher
  17. https://web.archive.org/web/20140614081643/http://socratesjones.com/about.html
  18. http://theologygaming.com/lets-play-socrates-jones-bible-euthyphro-god-holy-holy-god/
  19. https://www.academia.edu/4269933/How_to_Play_the_Reason-Giving_Game
  20. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Socrates_Jones
    I uploaded these. Not sure how they would be a source
    Didn't mean to imply this was a source for notability. Just a useful link to add to the article once notability has already been proven.--Coin945 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher
  22. http://www.mobygames.com/game/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher
  23. https://issuu.com/seattleacademy/docs/2017-2018_bos_volume_17_issuusept20/96
  24. https://www.neoteo.com/juegos-online-de-la-semana-220813/
  25. http://www.teenink.com/reviews/video_game_reviews/article/970551/Argument-Wars-/
  26. This source ties the game to a following title named Elsinore (video game)

  • can this article be reassessed

    Of course it can but I'm not sure why you would consider many of these sources reputable for statements of fact, if you can start there czar 13:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I VPN'd into Australia to access the 2017 book. That two-page chapter is good, as are the sources I mentioned in the section above, but I still don't see how we'd write an article that does justice to the topic from those alone. An alternative tack: There are several spin-offs of the Ace Attorney genre/gameplay (SJ, Aviary Attorney, Regeria Hope) and I wouldn't be opposed to a round-up of those as a summary style split from the main series article. czar 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not particularly interested in working on this article any more, but I would be fairly happy to see it recreated. I think there may be enough sources to recreate the article with, though I would like it to be of good quality and length before it goes into mainspace. I like Czar's idea of creating a List of Ace Attorney fangames as well; I think either could work. Someone should create a draft, I suppose. I'd be happy to copyedit, judge sources, and expand to some degree. ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, after starting this section, would you rewrite the article using patently unreliable sources? czar 01:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Attorney Clone[edit]

I'm unconvinced that this game should be called a "clone." None of the references refer to it as such, and from my own examination, it seems to have a lot of differences from ace attorney.

In terms of theme and story, it's completely different. The other games listed as clones (Aviary Attorney and Regeria Hope) seem to copy Ace Attorney's concept almost exactly, in that the player takes the role of a defense lawyer in court and in cross-examination shows the witness testimony to be flawed. In contrast, Socrates Jones' concept is completely original.

While the mechanics are clearly inspired by Ace Attorney, there are gameplay elements that appear in Ace Attorney but not in Socrates Jones, and, importantly, vice-versa. There are really only two interactions that the player can make in Socrates Jones. They can ask a question about a point that the opposing philosopher makes, or they can challenge the point. The challenge interaction is obviously borrowed from Ace Attorney, although it is slightly different in that it is made by selecting an idea that he philosopher previously presented during the debate instead of from a pre-existing "evidence bin." However, as far as I can tell, the question interaction (which occupies most of the player's time in-game) doesn't correspond to anything in Ace Attorney. The options are always the same (ask for clarification, press for backing, and question relevance), and they always address the structure of the argument. Ace attorney has multiple choice questions, but they aren't initiated by the player, the options are unique each time, and they usually address the facts of the case rather than the structure of the argument. There's enough innovation in this game's mechanics that they can't be called a straightforward copy of Ace Attorney's.

Finally, this game was clearly made primarily to educate players, whereas Ace Attorney was made primarily to entertain. I don't see how we can look at a game that's completely original in theme and purpose, and somewhat original in mechanics, and call it "a clone."

Gladius-veritatis (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I know they changed "Objection!" to "Nonsense!" but what happened to "Hold it!" and "Take that!"?

Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socrates_Jones:_Pro_Philosopher&oldid=1193169378"