Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Second, third, and fourth+ opinions on how to reorganize Mario before I do anything too drastic

[edit]

Mario, as it stands currently, is a crufty mess. At some point the balance shifted from maintaining the cruft to instead working around it. Many sections are bloated with necessary details containing the fun facts of hundreds of different editors, IPs, trolls, and the folk who saw a cool fun fact on YouTube and wanted to make sure everyone else knew it ("uh, actually, Charles Martinet's first role was for a Super Mario-themed pinball game that pre-dates 64 but he wasn't credited ☝️🤓")

I don't feel the need to keep notifying you all about my progress but this one I feel is necessary to ensure I don't get into kerfuffles in the future. Before I start making any major changes to the article as it appears in the mainspace, I want to get additional opinions on how to reorganize the article sections, and go over what each section should cover.

Proposed article layout
  • Characteristics: This sections gives a brief overview of the man, but only to the extent of how he appears in video games. Various developers have done outside canonizing of specifics about his age and stuff, but since there are various iterations and interpretations of Mario this deep of explanation is not only irrelevant, but impossible. This section will discuss physical attributes, relationships to other major characters, and the role he serves in the Mushroom Kingdom. Abilities pertaining to super-like jumping and athleticism are also worth mentioning, including a mention of power-ups.
  • Concept and creation: Development chronology of the origin of the character and how he has evolved over time.
  • History: Any necessary details leading up to how and why he was created, and the exact moment he was. Origin of Miyamoto, the circumstances that led to him being made, and breif info about Donkey Kong just to make give the first conception due weight.
  • Appearance and design: A specific outline of the design as he first appears. Them, it will discuss the evolution of his design over time, but only what's relevant and consistent over a long period, and the interpretations from the various designers that have directly influenced his appearance outside of Miyamoto (ex. Yōichi Kotabe).
  • Gameplay mechanics: his original abilities and how the player interacts with the character. It is going to read a little weird, considering how I'm explaining the concept of running and jumping as one of the original innovations. Any common staples that have been repeated among the franchise and if they have evolved in any way, such as said jumping and power-ups, will be discussed. This section will discuss his transition to 3D and the interpretation from designers who have directly influenced this field (ex. Yoshiaki Koizumi).
  • Voice acting: Mainly just the story of Charles Martinet.
  • In video games: Mario's role in the various video games he stars in, with prominence to the Super Mario series. Any details where major installments deviate from a standard formula in the context of Mario himself, such as an introduced gimmick, would be mentioned here (ex. Cappy).
  • Super Mario series
  • 2D games
  • 3D games
  • Other Super Mario games: 3D Land and World, Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.
  • Other Mario games: This section covers all the RPGs, sports games, puzzle games, party games, kart games, and whatever other ___ games. The outline currently present I'm going to shorten greatly; most of the games here simply use Mario as a font for genres of varying gameplay (such as Mario Kart and Party), so I will instead trim all these sections down to a few examples and explain them in that context. Any games with more depth than that, such the RPG ones, will get special discussion as to what they do differently with the character.
  • In other media: An overview of many important or otherwise notable appearances of Mario outside of the games, giving priority to live-action versions of the character and anything where Mario takes center stage (such as him being the main character). I'm going to limit this section to anything where Nintendo had direct influence, unless if any notable IP-outsourcing exist.
  • Reception: Wish me luck. "Cameos" will be merged somewhere into Reception.
  • Legacy
  • In popular culture: The amount of parodies and unofficial media made surrounding the character are worthy of more discussion. Due weight in mind, some examples help to expand the significance of the character (besides, if some niche Final Fantasy character were to be mentioned in a Saturday Night Live sketch, that would be added to their article in a heartbeat; Mario should not be too big to still recognize the small wins.)

Any content within this article, in any section, that doesn't fit these descriptions will be removed altogether. Any questions, suggestions, or critiques? Panini! • 🥪 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have plans to do any of the other characters once Mario is finished? I tried to do Toad a while back, but shelved the project after realizing that it would require rewriting most of the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a lot of the gameplay discussion can definitely be simplified from what's there. What's in the prose currently illustrates some bits well (like how his 3D movement was planned and the character it was based on) but then there's others that feel better suited for a series article (i.e. the Super Mario Run paragraph has little bearing on him as a character).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say use your best judgment but don't fear messing up its current status. The fact that you recognize it as a "crufty mess", unlike the last couple editors to do major work on it, means I your efforts will be a net positive. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only real "gripe" here is to be extremely cautious with "in popular culture". Per WP:INPOPULARCULTURE, "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. [...] When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." I'm planning on rewriting Pac-Man (character) further at some point in the future, and my approach to how to handle his appearances (as of right now, at least) was to only go in detail about Pac-Man's appearances that had some sort of relevance to the plot of what he appeared in, with a couple extra examples thrown in to wrap it up with "he's appeared in other stuff too". And this is despite the fact Pac-Man is probably the most referenced video game character in popular culture, possibly surpassing Mario. λ NegativeMP1 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mario article as it currently is appears to struggle with WP:INUNIVERSE issues, at some points it seems to treat Mario like a real person. It definitely needs some type of fix or rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of stuff that needs flat-out trimming. Mario needs a shave. He shouldn't have a beard. Panini! • 🥪 03:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Appearances section seems really awkward, given that there's no overarching narrative structure to the Mario games as a series, and most of them are of the form "Mario saves Peach from Bowser". It may be better to reduct that with pointer to the List of Mario games, though leaving the crossovers and other appearances outside that list as they are. --Masem (t) 02:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Masem, I haven't bumped into you in a while. Could you be more specific on what should be done with this section? Because this is the one I'm troubled on the most. The Super Mario sections have general overviews on the general story (save peach from bowse), so do you suggest I lean more into that regard? And go over how Mario is really just a character they drop in every game and link to that List of Mario article? Panini! • 🥪 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sentences are also very awkward grammar-wise and outright contradictory, like under Puzzle Games where it says "Mario has also starred in a variety of multiple puzzle games, but sometimes only makes an appearance and is not playable. The first of which to release was Wrecking Crew, designed by Yoshio Sakamoto. Surprisingly, in this game, Mario can't jump because of hammer's weight." Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harryhenry1 I rewrote the appearances section a while back, but I agree even my old work can use some condensing. This specific example was not written by me and was slipped in at some point, although I'll never be able to pinpoint where. Panini! • 🥪 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game engine sourcing project feedback

[edit]

I have a plan for myself to add inline citations for the "|engine = [engine name]" field for every Unreal Engine game (and other engines) in the video game info box. Currently, it is difficult to tell if the field has a source or not, because sometimes the source is only cited in prose. Commonly there is no source however and we should remove these. An example of an article with no source is Epic Mickey. There is no source for Unreal Engine 4 for the remake of it. There is a source for the original one but this can be difficult to tell. Having all these have citations makes it easy to verify as this field is prone to unsourced or badly sourced information. Often the engine is only mentioned in the infobox at all and not anywhere in prose. Currently it is common for the source to be cited in the infobox already.

I want to get feedback on if I should do this. Specifically, adding citations to infoboxes makes them messy to look at, both in source and in prose. Would this be an issue? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad general manner: Yes. If you cannot source an engine and include it in prose, remove it from the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding a source in the infobox specifically? My plan is to add an inline citation in the infobox even if it is already cited in prose. The idea is that this makes it much easier to see if there is a source for that claim, so that I can go through all of them easier. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2UDY7r00CRjH Follow MOS:INFOBOXCITE. Ideally, the content is in the prose so does not need citations in the infobox, which complicate the display. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the link. I guess I won't purse this any further. I'm glad I got feedback now instead of after I already started, so thanks. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got a copy of GamesRadar Presents Classic Gaming Vol. 3?

[edit]

Looking for pages 102-107, covering Wipeout, in "Behind The Scenes: Wip3out". GamesRadar Presents Classic Gaming Vol. 3. Bournemouth: Future plc. 2017. pp. 102–107. ISBN 978-1-78389-385-0.. Adam9007 added it to {{refideas}} a while back ago but he's been gone for years now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check your discord DMs. The issues are apparently up on Scribd, though you're stuck waiting through ads to read through them unless you subscribe.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

[edit]

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

[edit]

I have nominated Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. λ NegativeMP1 03:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In search of Famitsu issues

[edit]

Does anyone happen to have access to the issues "Weekly Famitsu August 18-25, 2022 Issue (1758)" and "Weekly Famitsu November 3, 2022 Issue (1768)" from the Weekly Famitsu magazine. I'm currently looking for them for interviews and segments on the visual novel Aquarium. As far as I can tell they haven't been uploaded/archived online anywhere. Any help is more than appreciated. CaptainGalaxy 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should game Engine info be assumed to be from credits when no source is provided?

[edit]

I recently went through all of Category:Unreal Engine 5 games, adding sources to each game if it was missing and removing it if no source was found> I ended up removing 12 "engine = Unreal Engine 5" fields from the infobox, and adding about 30 sources that previously had no source (from a rough count of my contribution history). @IgelRM pointed out to me, however, that many of these games have the Unreal Engine logo in their credits screen or startup logo, and that similar to individual developer credits, no source necessarily needs to be provided, so the removals should be reverted. Modern Unreal games starting from mid-late UE4 do not show the Unreal version number in the logo, so these would only be engine = Unreal Engine rather than engine = Unreal Engine 5. I would like to get some feedback on if we should assume that this info is coming from credits and if credits/startup logos can be used. I also think there should be a way to actually cite the credits so that people know where it's from. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For UE4/5, likely the first third-party UE5 games released from 2022/23 onward per Eurogamer. There is Template:Cite video game, maybe for referencing in prose "GAMENAME (PLATFORM). MANUFACTURER. Level/area: Credits." Cannot say otherwise, I just felt you did not have sufficient consensus for the removals. IgelRM (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"UE4 or 5" may be true but we should list UE4/5 as the engine. If we want to include it in the article I feel we need some sort of source to point to.
>I just felt you did not have sufficient consensus for the removals
Is it not the case that unsourced information may be removed at any time?
From WP:USI (an essay):

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.

I admit this is not such a clear case, but I do doubt that there exists sources for the claims for UE5 specifically as I searched for these games before removing them in all cases. Although there may sources for Unreal in general, that was not what was stated, so I think removal is allowed here.
The more I think about it, the more I think that we should keep these 10 or so removals and only add them back when some source is found. We definitely should not add them back as Unreal Engine 5 as there doesn't seem to be any way to use the logo to show a game is made in UE5. I think the logo did change slightly since UE5 came out from the previous UE4 one, but I also believe that new UE4 games would also still use that logo. If you want you can add them to the "Unreal Engine games" category and infobox using the logo, but please cite the logo as a source. I suppose you would need to download all ~10 of these games to show this as I don't think starup screens are generally shown eg. on youtube videos. I do not intend to do this as I do not have access to all these games. For clarity, I don't intend to revert any of the removals any more, so if you plan to add them back as Unreal Engine don't wait for me to do it. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot you were not editing articles for games with UE4 prior to 2022, so you are correct that does not help us; sorry.
We are already talking about this for a while, so briefly: I did not word this well with consensus, I did not mean it was not allowed. Just that I think Unreal Engine can be verified with a primary source of in-game information. IgelRM (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think we should update Template:Infobox video game's documentation to note that a source must be provided and that users can use Template:Cite video game to do so. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Hit

[edit]

Smash Hit has been put up for a peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAC. Any suggestions are welcome. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 26 to September 1)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 11:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

August 31

September 1

I get that the Arkham games are huge and have many spinoff articles, but an article exclusively about its shadow seems like a stretch. Panini! • 🥪 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Fortnite seasonal events#Requested move 26 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fortnite seasonal events#Requested move 26 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for List of Dreamcast homebrew games

[edit]

Please see Talk:List of Dreamcast homebrew games and give your opinions. Sceeegt (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article Bug Heroes adventure game

[edit]

Greetings, Asking for help here to add a link of this 2011 game into another article, so it's no longer Orphan. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging/moving of Neo Geo (system) > Neo Geo

[edit]

I've been asked (at Talk:Neo Geo (system)) to post this here and see if there is consensus for this merge/move.

I have proposed the merging of Neo Geo (system) to Neo Geo for the following reasons:

As part of the merge:

  • The 'Retro consoles' section of the current Neo Geo article, which makes up half of it, would remain, as it is directly related to the Neo Geo (MVS/AES) topic - they are remakes of that product
  • The rest of the current Neo Geo article, from the top until the point of the 'Retro consoles' part, would be removed as it's redundant. The various hardware by SNK are already well described in the SNK article. Additionally, the article currently also has questionable content (described as a 'family', "discontinued in 2004", and a complete lacks of sources).

Let me know if there is a general agreement for this. --Sceeegt (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of "roguelike" in infobox

[edit]

Has WT:VG come to a consensus on whether or not roguelike should count as a valid genre listed in the infobox? Take games like The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, for example; would it be more appropriate to replace them with "action" instead? And in the intro section we could put "action game with roguelike structure/elements", thus eliminating the need for this term to be listed in the infobox? Can we hold a vote on whether or not this term's validity as applied to the infobox section is worth invalidating? Venky64 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot change the fact that most sources will call Binding and other games like Hades or Slay the Spire as roguelikes. We are not going to play the game where a small subset of players want to keep "roguelike" term pure with respect to the Berlin Interpretation and call everything else roguelites, because in the sourcing, roguelike and roguelite are used interchangeably nowadays. So it make no sense to remove it as long as sources use roguelike/roguelite. We can add the other genres that are represented like "action game" for Binding. Masem (t) 04:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: this two hour read, which you narrowly avoided by discussing first, imposing changes after. Panini! • 🥪 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies and Inspired games on franchise navboxes

[edit]

Should parodies and games inspired by certain franchises be on these franchise's navboxes? For instance, Pocket Mortys on Template:Pokémon, or Pizza Tower on Template:Wario? Note, this is not talking about spin-offs or crossover appearances or fangames, just games with stated influence or parody games. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think arguments for a parody game can be made as long as they're direct derivatives, but I feel inspiration is far too much of a gray area. Pizza Tower is a good example of a direct influence, but Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling is a little more a stretch to claim complete influence. I remember Markiplier saying A Heist was inspired by The Stanley Parable, but it is impossible to draw any comparison between the two beyond the choose-your-own adventure stick. It would just be impossible to formalize and would spawn many arguments; if we can't formalize it, we shouldn't. Panini! • 🥪 21:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote "no", it seems ludicrous to say that just because someone clones a game, it's intrinsically related. The exception is if the game was created by the same creators and is clearly a spiritual successor of some kind. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong argument to include Pyst, a flat out parody of Myst, under the Myst series template, but as put there, its listed as a "related subject". However, simple homages and games that may only have parts of parodies, that's getting a bit too far outside that. The Pyst situation is exceptional, in this case. Masem (t) 21:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (September 2 to September 8)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

September 3

September 4

September 5

September 6

September 7

September 8

Captain Galaxy It's called "A Minecraft Movie"? I thought it was just "Minecraft". Panini! • 🥪 18:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, wrong captain lol. Captain Assassin! Panini! • 🥪 18:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good bro! CaptainGalaxy 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, they set up the article 9 years ago, it got moved to the current title this week (and had the talk page tag added). --PresN 18:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But like, is the movie called that? I don't see "A Minecraft Movie" anywhere all that much. It says it here but in the title of the post its called "Minecraft: The Movie". Panini! • 🥪 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it seems like the official name now. Here's Warner Bros.'s website. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular combat genre

[edit]

What does the community here think about vehicular combat games and what qualifies as such? From experience this term has only been used to describe games like Twisted Metal i.e. fantasy-themed and/or dramatic action involving weapons and such. On the other hand, games like Destruction Derby take a realistic "sim" approach and it's distinct enough for me not to see them as the same genre. The way the article is written only takes into account the weapon-based kind. Gamerant for example refer to these games as "demolition derby", and Giantbomb also specifically categorize this sort of genre, instead of vehicular combat. Sceeegt (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles on genres are terrible and should be rewritten from scratch from reliable sources. Check Google Books for decent sources. There's usually something from an academic publisher. Or see if IGN, Polygon, PC Gamer, or Rock Paper Shotgun have done a write-up on the history of the genre. That's not as good as an academic publisher, but it's leaps better than a Valnet website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be better to keep as a subsection in "racing game" given how little there is to say about this genre specifically. Masem (t) 03:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racing game, vehicle simulation game, and vehicular combat game all share the same DNA. Most academics agree that games are categorized by their mechanics, even if we see different aesthetics for Mario Kart and Gran Turismo (or Mario Kart Battle Mode and Destruction Derby). The organization of game genres is in a worse and worse state because people want to spin off a new article for every variation. I believe Wikipedia should very much be mergist when it comes to game genres, with subsections for different variations. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "incomplete" might be a better word than "terrible". Or are you implying these articles existing is actually worse than nothing being there at all? I think something is usually better than nothing, especially when it comes to genres that underpin the basis of the video game industry. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean contradictory, confusing, and poorly sourced. There are several benefits to merging multiple subgenres under one genre. Fewer WP:CONTENTFORKs which means less redundancy *and* less contradiction. More reliable sources. Fewer stubs. More context for readers. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the vehicular combat genre, I always think of Twisted Metal and Vigilante 8 when it comes to said term but i'm gonna go further back with BattleWheels for the Atari Lynx. That one was released in 1993 and predates even Twisted Metal by two full years. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1245198687"