Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk

viewtalkeditchanges

"Mixed to positive"[edit]

Hi all, does the WikiProject have a position on "mixed to positive", "mixed to negative" phrasing in video game articles? I know that WikiProject Film shuns it pretty universally as poor writing and WP:SYNTH. For context, I opened a discussion at Talk:Batman: The Telltale Series, because this phrasing keeps showing up, largely because Metacritic has three different ratings for three different platforms, and editors are mushing together the one "mixed" summary with the two "positive" summaries to arrive at "mixed to positive". Thanks. (Also, comments appreciated in the discussion at Batman...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen several VG articles where this has been frowned on, as "mixed to positive" has a meaning akin to "negative to positive to positive", which of course makes no sense. I do not believe there's any sort of guideline that explicitly calls it out though. The appropriate way to state it in my view, with one system lagging behind others, would be along the lines of "General positive reviews for the X and Y systems, but mixed reviews for the Z system." Which of course can be directly sourced, while "mixed to positive" is bit SYNTHy, as you noted. -- ferret (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm personally against it because it's an awkward statement. People use it to express the idea of "medium", but mixed means "across the board negative to positive". When people say "mixed to positive", they're trying to say "medium to positive", but in actuality, they're saying something to the capacity of "negative to positive to positive". Between that, and the fact that it's almost always used to POV push a more favorable view onto a subject, leads me to usually remove it. I see others do the same sometimes, though I don't think we have an official stance on it as a WikiProject. I'd be in favor of putting it in the guidelines if we could get a consensus for it though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've always eschewed it for pretty much the same reasons as what the both of you have outlined. I'm just repeating what you both said, but in my head, yes, "mixed" means positive and negative. In my interpretation, "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" is an attempt to say "skews from 'meh' to slightly positive" or "skews from 'meh' to slightly negative", but once we start getting into nuanced gradations, we're analyzing the analysis and (as argued at the talk page above) aggregating the aggregators (Metacritic, in this case.) Though I'm not a regular at this WikiProject, I'd be happy to participate in any more formalized discussion on the matter, and would still welcome opinions con and pro about this. If consensus were against this phrasing, having something codified one way or another would certainly help other gnomes such as myself in managing the virus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You could just not include the statement at all. I know alot reception sections open with a "Game received positive/negative/mixed reviews from critics." but it's not like a mandatory requirement that we must specify how the game was received according to an aggregator. If it's not clear, then I think it's best not to make poorly phrased and possibly confusing statements. Instead open the section with "The game was praised for A, B, C and criticised for X, Y, Z" or something before going into detail. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This "Mixed to Positive" discussion received CRITICAL ACCLAIM from critics, and a score of 63 on Metacritic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
What? No universal critical acclaim from critics? Face-wink.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it could be eliminated, and I said as much at the Batman article. I don't really see the point of summarizing what is already a summary--I've gone on record with this in the world of film articles, but it seems an uphill battle, and every time a summary gets removed, someone puts it back. Seems like something that should be addressed in some meaningful way that results in a wiki shortcut. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think removing the opening sentence entirely is too much of an uphill battle, but I'm still all for trimming out all the "mixed to positive" crap. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Any opposition?[edit]

Any opposition to putting this in the guidelines? Are any regulars in favor of the phrase and have some sort of defense for it? Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd been keeping quiet since I can't think of a polite way of expressing my thoughts on the subject, and from the sounds of the posts above people are already very sensitive about this. But since you asked... Frankly, it seems that the sentiment to eliminate this phrase is pedantic in a rather bizarre way. The thrust of the argument seems to be that reviews can only be either positive or negative, despite the general public's impression that there is something in between: a mixed review, meaning that it contains a mix of praises and criticisms with no overarching recommendation that "Everyone should buy this" or "Nobody should buy this." This terminology is in very common usage and very intuitive, and it seems rather silly that everyone here is pretending to not understand what it means. The claim that "received mixed to positive reviews" violates WP:SYNTH but "received positive reviews" does not is especially baffling.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not my take at all. No one is asking to eliminate "mixed", but the silly nonsensical "mixed to positive". As for suggesting "received positive reviews" might also be SYNTH, it's not, if sourced correctly to an aggregator (Metacritic). Metacritic never says "mixed to positive". -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen an article which says "According to Metacritic, the game received positive reviews." Only "The game received positive reviews.", with no immediate reference.
I fully understand that no one is asking to eliminate "mixed". You've misinterpreted my post somehow.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure how to read your post then, as it seems to pretty clearly suggest there was an argument that "reviews can only be either positive or negative". As for referencing "According to Metacritic", I see that in dozens of articles and often add it myself. Sometimes the direct citation may be missing from the sentence (I.e. Metacritic is referenced in the review template), but the statement needs a source, and Metacritic is typically the best we have. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Martin IIIa, I too am having difficulty understanding what you're objecting to. The discussion is about "mixed to ____" phrasing, which is already generally shunned by WikiProject Film, and seems to have little, if any support at this Wikiproject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties understanding as well. Perhaps you're not following our discussion as well? I went ahead and wrote an entry on it on the guidelines a few days back since there was consensus to do so. Read it over at WP:VG/POV. Do you still have the same concerns? If so, perhaps you can reword your concern then? The issue isn't so much WP:SYNTH, its more that the phrase is awkward and doesn't make sense. The fact that fans often use it to POV push a more positive spin on their game is more of a negative by-product that comes from its use commonly. The core issue is that its an awkward phrase not used any besides poorly written Wikipedia articles (or maybe other Wikias or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"I'm unsure how to read your post then", "I too am having difficulty understanding", "I'm having difficulties understanding as well" - See, this is precisely what I'm talking about. The meaning of "mixed to positive reviews"/"mixed to negative reviews" is intuitive and obvious, and I don't for one second believe that anyone here could be genuinely confused as to what it means. So the fact that the entire argument for its removal is based around claiming that it "makes no sense", and then responding to any counter-arguments with "I don't understand", raises serious doubts in my mind as to whether there is any objection to the phrasing itself, rather than to a blatantly contrived misunderstanding of that phrasing.
As to the side note about POV, having done quite a bit of editing in the Reception sections, I have yet to see any evidence, even circumstantial, of the phrasing being used to push POV. If a fan wants to push POV, they don't write "mixed to positive reviews"; they write "positive reviews" or "great critical acclaim" and either delete or just ignore any sourced criticism.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not...entirely sure what sort of thing you're accusing everyone else of here when you don't believe we're honestly confused with you, (or what motivations anyone could possibly have for that), but I assure you, it's a combination of a confusing opening statement by you, coupled with a distaste for awkward wording in prose by everyone else. It's not a matter of "Well we know what it means, so just go with it." We know what the word "aint" means, but that doesn't mean its acceptable encyclopedic writing. Beyond the awkwardness, don't you find it concerning that "Mixed to positive" isn't something any aggregators or individual websites use to describe the reception of the game? Wikipedia "documents" information, it doesn't "create" it - so if no one else uses it, how can we justify using it ourselves? There's just no need for it. Either use "mixed" or "generally positive". In any disputes arise, defer to the descriptor used by the aggregator. There's really nothing that falls between the cracks with that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any question that, as an encyclopedia, we prefer clear language over ambiguity any day. When someone challenges the meaning of a sentence at FAC, no one even questions their misinterpretation—they rewrite the sentence so that misinterpretation is impossible. When writing about something as broad and important as a game's reputation we should be as clear as the sources will allow. "Mixed to positive" is sloppy—the phrase should be recast to explain what about it was mixed and what about it was positive and who said so. I don't think it would hurt to make such a statement in the guidelines. We are much better off using no broad characterization at all when nary a source gives one. Citing the exact phrase Metacritic uses to summarize reception is the way to go, as it's unambiguous and verifiable. czar 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Computer and Video Game Studies Journals access[edit]

This University of Michigan Library site lists a series of video game-related journals that might prove interesting for this project. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering about your thoughts regarding getting access to them through Wikipedia, ala Wikipedia:HighBeam?--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • ACM Computers in Entertainment: Computers in Entertainment covers a wide range of theoretical and practical computer applications...
  • Elsevier Entertainment Computing: Entertainment Computing publishes original, peer-reviewed research articles on topics including computer...
  • Eludamos: Eludamos is an international, multi-disciplined, biannual e-journal that publishes peer-reviewed...
  • Games and Culture: Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media is a quarterly international journal that publishes...
  • Game Studies: Game Studies is a crossdisciplinary journal dedicated to games research, web-published several times a year...
  • Loading... Loading... attempts to provide a mixed-methods approach to the study of digital games. It covers both...
  • Simulation and Gaming: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research appraises academic...
Academic papers are generally unhelpful for our articles, mainly for their low quality than anything else—they sometimes require original research just to interpret what they're saying... (Many even cite Wikipedia, which brings its own host of problems.)
Per Ulrich's, the following products offer full-text:
  1. Computers in Entertainment (ISSN 1544-3981) in ACM Digital Library (2003–2014), EBSCOhost Applied Science & Technology, Computers & Applied Sciences, or EBSCO Engineering Collection: India (since 2007), NexisDirect; indexing in EBSCOhost
  2. Elsevier Entertainment Computing (ISSN 1875-9521) is in Elsevier... good luck
  3. Eludamos (ISSN 1866-6124) is open access: http://www.eludamos.org/
  4. Games and Culture (ISSN 1555-4120) in Sage (TWL currently only providing stats coverage from Sage), supposedly also in IngentaConnect
  5. Game Studies (ISSN 1604-7982) is open access: http://gamestudies.org/
  6. Loading... (ISSN 1923-2691) is open access: http://journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/index
  7. Simulation and Gaming (ISSN 1046-8781) also in Sage and Ingenta
A number of these were also indexed (no full text) in the main EBSCOhost and ProQuest products, meaning a firehose search at your local university will show you what papers might be relevant, and you can always request those at resource exchange for help from those with access. Ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), who handles new partnerships for TWL czar 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finding all this out Czar! In regards to the Sage journals, keep an eye out for our announcements next month ;) @Coin945: If you have any more requests like this feel free to stick them on WP:TWL/Databases/Requests and I'll look into them for you :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like.--Coin945 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I visit gamestudies.org from time to time, but in my opinion, the quality of the papers aren't always as good. As a former student of pastoral care, I am very interested in the use of religious and philosophical elements in games (BioShock, Fallout 3, Brothers); I frequent Online, from Heidelberg University for that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 16 September[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

10 September

11 September

12 September

13 September

14 September

15 September

16 September

Salavat (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LEGO Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Video Game is a hoax and should be deleted. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirected Watch Dogs (series) because of our consensus that there should be at least 3 titles in a series to warrant a series article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

3DO and Gex sales[edit]

A while ago, I found articles in GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly cover-dated October-November 1995 which state that sales for Gex had just exceeded one million units. (You can see the citations for both articles in 3DO Interactive Multiplayer.) I was immediately skeptical; Gex had at this point only been released for the 3DO, and going by every sales figure I've seen for the console, that would mean the 3DO version of Gex had an attach rate of over 1:2. Bear in mind that this was before Gex became a pack-in game. However, I couldn't claim to have found solidly reliable sales figures for the 3DO, a 1:2 attach rate isn't actually impossible, and it's hard to swallow that both GamePro and EGM would be duped by the same grossly inflated sales figure, so I went ahead and added the info to the relevant articles.

Present day: I found an article in Next Generation, coincidentally also cover-dated November 1995, which says "Global sales [for the 3DO] stand at around 750,000, with 300,000 sold in the U.S." That would make 1 million sales of Gex essentially impossible. Generally speaking I wouldn't say GamePro or EGM are more likely to embarrassingly goof up than Next Generation, but my gut is telling me that "3DO sales were 750,000 units as of ~September 1995" is a lot closer to reality than "Gex sold over a million copies even before it became a pack-in." So I'm not sure who to believe. Can anyone offer their thoughts or reliable sourced info on 3DO/Gex sales?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Could the figure for Gex be "retailed purchased" and not "consumer purchased"? I'm thinking how sales of games were considered back then, which generally seemed to be based on what retailers grabbed, rather than the shelf sales, but I'm not 100% sure on that. That said, if you can't get any other clarification, you could always say something like "Gex's sales figures are unclear: While GamePro and EGM stated Gex sold more one million copies, Next Generation reported that global sales for the 3DO were at 750,000." This isn't SYNTH nor POV-ish, and giving proper attribution to a disputed fact. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd be really interested to find out about this; the sales numbers for the series as a whole are really odd. I ran into it at List of Square Enix franchises, where (through their purchase of Eidos) it's the 5th-best selling series Square Enix has. As in, Kingdom Hearts with 11 games has 22 million, Gex with 3 has 15 million, and Hitman with 9 has 15 million (all numbers are minimums; the true sales are likely higher). That's... bizarre. Both for selling so many copies with only 3 games, and for the absurd fact that, what, it was Eidos's 2nd-best selling series after Tomb Raider and they just abruptly dropped the whole franchise in 1999? Those kind of sales numbers would mean that a crappy tie-in game would sell half a million, and they just never bothered? --PresN 01:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Masem. For some reason I keep forgetting that sales figures often refer to units shipped to retailers rather than units passed on to consumers. Reviewing the two articles, neither is explicit as to which of those two it refers to ("with sales figures that passed the one million mark in July"). Still, I find it hard to believe Crystal Dynamics would have manufactured 250,000 more copies of Gex than there were 3DO owners; my understanding was that that sort of speculative manufacturing was only done with cartridges, since with CDs it's easier to do smaller batches and second runs. Am I mistaken on that count? I'll take your suggestion about directly stating that the sales figures are unclear. Hopefully we'll eventually find something that clears this up, but honestly, I'm surprised that I was able to find this much information on Gex sales!
PresN - That is kind of baffling about Gex sales, especially as I had thought that aside from the first game, reviews for the series weren't that great. I'll keep an eye out for more info.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Two GANs awaiting reviews[edit]

Over two months ago, I have nominated Doom (2016 video game) for the GA-status, and, recently, I have nominated the Worms Armageddon article for the status. I just thought that I could highlight those articles awaiting reviews. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There are fifteen other articles waiting for reviews too. The process is stalled right now. GamerPro64 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gamingforfun365: Worms only just got nominated, but what has been keeping the Doom article from being reviewed is likely its length - it simply takes more time and effort to review it than shorter articles. If you don't want to wait, my suggestion is that you offer to review another editor's medium-sized/long GAN in exchange for a review of yours.--IDVtalk 09:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Atari Lynx games[edit]

I have asked in the past ages ago, but I might bring back the question of notability of the games in this list, specifically under the heading of Cancelled titles, pre-license and Unlicensed titles with a cartridge release I tried to work out what was home-brew and questioned why some of these are included. Specifically as Songbird Productions has come up for AfD and there are a fair few of their games on the list. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We should probably discuss this in a more general sense, since List of Game Boy games, List of Nintendo 3DS games, and List of PlayStation Vita games (A–L) (to name just a few) also have sections for cancelled games and unlicensed games. I don't like the idea of listing off cancelled games, since every system has a whole bunch of these and cataloging them all, especially with good sourcing, is a near impossible task. Having categories for cancelled games is one thing, but inclusion in a "List" article implies that the list is comprehensive or near-comprehensive. Unlicensed games I'm unsure about, though certainly as a rule unlicensed games are very low-run, tiny niche releases.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
A while back I removed a big chunk of the article, notably what I thought all the home-brew games were, I haven't had any argument. Hope it's okay, Govvy (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Edutainment drive[edit]

The edutainment (educational video game) genre has been unrepresented on Wikipedia for a while. I propose that we conduct a drive to work on some of the more popular series within this genre. Yes, they may be "for kids", but that doesn't make them any less worthwhile than other genres. There is a lot of nostalgia to these series which has drawn me towards them. Considering they are highly successful (Reader Rabbit sold over 6 million copies, and won over 175 awards), and given the recent expansion of Madeline video games, I believe there is a great opportunity for some collaborative editing in this space. Some examples are listed below.

Thoughts? :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I do have fond memories of playing JumpStart Math for Second Graders in Swedish, but I can barely find any coverage in online sources. Seems to be difficult to write an article on it, unless there's a lot of coverage in magazines from when the game came out. If someone finds sources that can be used, I'm up for writing that article, but I'm not very interested in writing about edutainment games in general.--IDVtalk 09:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say we should do some work on the List of American Girl video games as well. Thought we'd turn it into a series overview similar to Madeline with separate entries for each of the games, but notability for them is a bit of a stretch unless we get reliable sources (offline and online) alike. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That, my friend, would be golden if we expand upon some if not all of the games from the series. I am yet to find any worthwhile references to back up the others though, like with American Girls Dress Designer and various other titles in the series. On a related note I did manage to hack the latter game to make it work on Windows NT-based OSes along with a friend of mine, as it's hard for me to just start a new VM for the sole purpose of running the game and taking screenshots from it. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There, just started a preliminary draft for you to play around with. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice preliminary draft! I don't have a large amount of free time at the moment due to real life events getting in the way, so I'm not sure how much help I could be with writing that article. I've also never played games in the series before so I have no personal context with which to understand the sources. But with the sources I listed above, and with your brains, I know that article can become amazing. I would recommend starting with an article on The American Girls Premiere first, and making that as good as it can be, and then afterwards doing research on the other titles.--Coin945 (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do for now. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Source I just found for y'all - Computer Gaming World December 1991 had a survey of educational software (page 38) and a review of Where in America's Past is Carmen Sandiego (page 106). --PresN 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I had been offering minor assistance to Deltasim last year in expanding the Freddi Fish articles (background: 1, 2). Deltasim has made some substantial efforts in the area of children's (often educational) video games so he might be a good person to contact for assistance/advice. -Thibbs (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I also did created the article Magic Tales, which has shares some characteristics to Living Books as well as Draft:Edmark House Series. I made a number of improvements to Fun School and many of the Humongous Entertainment adventure games. An article that would be good to add is "Europress Living Classics", yet another click-and-point storybook series. I'm happy to help in the edutainment area. Deltasim (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Video game lists by country of developer[edit]

Thoughts on this category and its lists? Looks like a mess to me czar 04:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is better suited for categories, which already exists. These list articles should be deleted, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in Belgium. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Wacht 's even @Maplestrip, ik dacht dat ik de enige Nederlander hier was! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no, you aren't ^_^; I'm sure there are plenty of people from the Netherlands that are active on Wikipedia. We gotta meet up sometime ;p But yeah, not really relevant to the discussion, of course. ~Mable (chat) 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Time Top 50 for 2016[edit]

I didn't see this when it came out last month, but here's Time's Top 50 Video Games of All Time. It's unlikely any of these games need a sourcing boost, but this is something that should be included in all these listed. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Rise of the Tomb Raider is number 18? Their explanation for it being on there could describe any of the other games in the series. GamerPro64 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I know right? And it's way ahead of Bioshock! Whatever, at least I got a good laugh out of it. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Silly list indeed. Doesn't really matter. I wonder if this list gets covered by any third-parties. If not, I wouldn't say that it is "something that should be included in all these listed." ~Mable (chat) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Destructoid covered it by making fun of the list. Time's '50 best video games of all time' list has broken me. GamerPro64 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But Time gives each game a paragraph of flavor text, treading much closer to the diminutive "listicle" that serves nothing, aside from "content."

czar 00:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we can mostly ignore it. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
While I am not questioning that there's some odd choices on this list and the approach it takes, keep in mind that Time generally is still considered one of the better reliable sources at large and that we have included Time's lists before; purposeful omission because we (presumably all video game players and know there are some questions) think it is wrong does beg some questions. What if, say, WSJ, came out tomorrow with a top ten video game list (made under editorial oversight) with Daikatana at #1? Do we ignore that? --MASEM (t) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm mostly saying that I think we can ignore this listicle because it adds little to nothing to the article it lists. I mean, this is hardly the most prestigious title Tetris and Super Mario 64 have claimed. It may be due to be used in DotA 2, but with such a low placing, I still don't think it's particularly interesting. It's just one reliable source of of many that praises the games highly. Add it to the list of video games considered the best, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia is infested with far too many listicle references. "In 2006, somerandomwebsite.com listed FooBarBaz as having one of the 30 greatest villains," etc. This applies to movies & songs even worse than video games, actually. The only valid time this works is truly epochal lists that are by definition rare, or a claim that *many* sources reference an element as being awesome, not just one.
The TIME list *might* be valid for List of video games considered the best, but it seems slapdash enough to not even be worth much effort there. Time is out of its domain so any prestige it has from news reporting elsewhere doesn't really carry over. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This. I agree with that Destructoid quote—the Time article is an indicator of how far our mighty publications have fallen. In theory, yes, this Time article should have been a big deal if it added cite-worthy substance (there is a whole lot to be said on legacy of these games that a reputable publication has yet to say) but the way that it's written, I wouldn't even include it unless I were listing from a bunch of "top"-lists. The fact that the article reads like a listicle makes me—and I think many others—question the esteem in which we hold Time. czar 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How to handle a released game that purposely removes high-level features in later updates?[edit]

Orcs Must Die! Unchained was released with both PvP and PvE elements, but they had just announced that they plan to drop the PvP elements to focus on PvE. [1]. Obviously at some point in that article we can describe that the game as originally released had these features, and describe their decision to remove it. However, I would like input how to do this:

  1. Should the original gameplay mode that was removed be kept in the "Gameplay" section or should be relocated to "Development"? If kept in "Gameplay" how best to describe it?
  2. If moved, should this move be done before the update that will remove the feature goes live or afterwards?

--MASEM (t) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I think the Gameplay section should describe how the game plays at the time of writing. If a game was updated to include multiplayer features we would write about them in Gameplay, so it seems sensible to me that descriptions of how the game previously played should move to Development, and I'd think that this should be done after the feature is live. Sam Walton (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, we are bad at post-release development and reception for (usually) MMOGs. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As a counter-point to Sam, we also describe the gameplay of games that are not playable at all in present tense (MMOs like Final Fantasy XIV, old games like Space Travel (video game), so I could also see the idea of a paragraph at the end of gameplay "Prior to an update on Date X, OMD!U contained a PvP mode. In it..." and describe the now-defunct mode in past-tense. I'm just not sure that putting a bunch of gameplay information into the development section, even if it's no longer playable, is a good idea from a readability perspective. --PresN 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I was actually going to mention something about that in my reply, but forgot before I hit save. My suggestion would be 'as current playable, or as last playable'. That said, I'm not against the idea of having "[Game] previously included [feature]" if that feature is significant. Sam Walton (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, we only use past tense if a game is actually considered lost. Many MMOs and old games can still be played in some state. The line of when a game is actually considered lost can be vague, though. Darkspore seems to be lost now that the servers are down and the game can no longer be played at all. Should Space Travel also be considered lost? It seems like the game might not even exist anymore, though such a status is left vague in the article... ~Mable (chat) 20:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the actual physical program punchcards are probably still in existence in a box somewhere, and there's still a handful of PDP-7s in existence, but practically the game is gone and will never be played again. I just went with the default present-tense to avoid the argument altogether. --PresN 20:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It might be an argument worth having again, but not here. We're off-topic. ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proteus to FA[edit]

I know that last time I nominated Proteus I said it would be the last time, but the little clock in the FA column on my userpage has been irking me. At the last FAC the primary concern was copyediting - it seems like the consensus is that the content and sourcing is all good. I've run through it a number of times trying to improve the prose but there's only so much I can do. Could I get some opinions on the article and help copyediting it ready for a fourth (and hopefully final) FAC? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought about contacting JimmyBlackwing? I think he's retired now but his copyediting has helped bring a lot of articles to either GA or FA status. GamerPro64 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. Yeah, I don't edit here much, but I still check Wikipedia every day. Ironically, it looks like my comment is the one that torpedoed the FAC in question! Work keeps me really busy, but glancing at the article, I see that it's on the short side. I have to say, it's tempting. I'll see if I can commit any time to copyediting it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Talks from this last weekend's Roguelike Celebration[edit]

The official channel from this last weekend's Roguelike Celebration are available at [YouTube]. Keep in mind this was mostly for the classic roguelikes (not roguelike-likes etc.). Also trying to see if we can get photos but would appreciate any help or leads towards this if possible. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Furry games?[edit]

Hi everyone,

Is List of furry role-playing games an actual thing? Or is this WP:OR that looks at supposed furry elements within RPGs? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, with the list being unsourced, and a majority of the articles on it I spot checked being very poorly sourced. It's not my specialty area, so I don't know how viable such a list may or may not be, but if it were to be kept, I would think it would have to be completely reworked with some sort of inclusion criteria. (RS's verifying entries, defining if it takes any more than just anthropomorphic animals being present in a RPG to be included, etc.) I'm also curious as to why more seemingly obvious, mainstream animal-based titles aren't included. (Sonic Chronicles, Tail Concerto, Solatorobo, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Furry works as a genre(?) are rarely discussed by mainstream media, and the term may be considered somewhat diminutive when applied to a work (because "furry" gets a bad rep). I think it would be important to source a list of furry games well, and if we can't, I don't think we should have such a list. That being said, I don't know any of the listed games either, and some of the descriptions sound convincing: "... allows players to create their own customized mutant animals ..." ; "... a genetically engineered race of anthropomorphic animals ..."; etc. Still, though, it's WP:OR. I'd rather keep it with a category instead. ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Arguably these should be classified as "anthropomorphic creatures" rather than "furry", the latter being more a culture rather than something concrete that is readily obvious to the situation. There's a lot of subtly into the "furry" term that doesn't readily match with the intent of these games (like TMNT), but they all clearly feature humanized creatures. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
As soon as you title it "List of role-playing games featuring anthropomorphic creatures"/"animals", the list starts too look very crufty. ~Mable (chat) 05:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This was a thought of mine as well, though I wasn't knowledgeable enough about the culture to say for sure. The "Furry" is more about people dressing up like anthropomorphic animals, right? To call these animal-based games "furry games", isn't that comparable to calling Final Fantasy 7 a "cosplay" game or something? As in, they're both erroneous in the same way, with the term referring more to what fans do rather than what the game itself is actually doing? Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Furry culture is complicated, but yeah, I imagine that very few of these games were created with intend of serving as a "furry game". They may be very notable among the furry community, but without any reliable sources, that's all conjecture or original research anyway. ~Mable (chat) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment and would probably chop a bunch of the entries from the list in question. The mere presence of anthropomorphized animals does not make it a "furry" thing. It requires input, acceptance, and propagation through the furry community to acquire that distinction. Alternatively, if the creator is a member of the community and created the thing with the intention of it being for the community, that would also count. Sources sources sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And part of the problem is that there are likely going to be some of these that may look "furry" but the author won't necessary say that "furry" was an influence, given that at times, that is also a negative label. The developer absolutely has to self-identify the game coming from that culture. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, you can have a list of games that are highly notable among the furry community even if the games were not designed as such, if you have sources. But we don't have sources. ~Mable (chat) 00:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with sources it is possible, but in the confines of "RPG", it's going to be a very short list. A sourced list of games developed in the vein of the furry culture would be better (if not a large media article). --MASEM (t) 01:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 23 September[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

16 September

17 September

18 September

19 September

20 September

21 September

22 September

23 September

Salavat (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open world is not a genre - Part 2[edit]

Ok do we have an official guideline on the usage of "Open World" in the opening sentence yet? And if not? Why not?

Discussion, after discussion, after discussion, after discussion, after discussion. It's stupid and I'm fed up of having to deal with people about it the same way I'm fed up of dealing with "Mixed to positive" and "universal acclaim" people about it. We need to enshrine it, now, that it is not a genre, it is not a defining trait (since every game and its mother can be classed as open world almost now), and it doesn't belong in the opening sentence, it is to be discussed IF NECESSARY alongside discussion of gameplay or design. It needs to be nipped now, or it will just continue on forever. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We call the Mass Effect series "science fiction" in the lead, despite that not being a genre. I don't have a problem with including it in legitimate open world games, such as Skyrim and Witcher 3. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I do think in the case of Mass Effect series where there have been multiple games of varying type that it is better to classify it by theme than gameplay, but an individual ME game should be called by gameplay. On the other hand, a series that has had the same gameplay for all games within it (including any spin-offs) should be named by its gameplay genre. (Thing is, off the top of my head, I can't think of any long-enough series to have 100% consistent gameplay, even things like Sly Cooper or Jak & Daxter has weird varients.)
As to the first question, open world is a gameplay mechanic but I do agree that its not a genre. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How off topic is that? What does people misapplying thematic genres have to do with using a gameplay jargon design term in the lead? As for the use of "science fiction", then we shouldn't call it science fiction in the lead? It's an action RPG. This is exactly why this discussion is needed because you start drawing in whatever terms you feel like then suddenly every article is opening with "Call of Duty is an action-drama-sometimes-science-fiction first-person shooter game."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
At least science fiction is a literary genre. It makes sense for the lead of a strongly narrative-based franchise. video game genres aren't exactly perfect either, so keeping stuff like this open can be useful and meaningful. Open world would often be less useful, in the same way that "has RPG-mechanics" wouldn't be useful. I mean, it's more descriptive than "sandbox", but it's not great. However, I do think we should describe our games as reliable sources describe them. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It's a good descriptor for prose, but it shouldn't be in the genre field... Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Dissident93. I don't see the issue with saying that the game is open world in the opening sentence if it is considered as an open world game. It shouldn't be listed as a genre in the infobox, but I think it is important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it is important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence? Refer to the discussion linked above, do we put "Linear shooter"? "hub-based action adventure"? Non-narrative survival horror? 80's themed dance game? No. Why would there be special treatment for open world? Especially when Open World can apply to almost anything? Is Deus Ex an open world game? If not, why not? Because it loads hubs? GTA: Vice City or GTA: III, one or both includes loading between some areas, so it can be considered hub based as well, why one and not the other? The first sentence should refer to the primary genre, not a broadly applied level design term. There are no major awards for best Open World game, there are best action adventure, and best first person shooter however. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If sources commonly call a game an open world game, then it is one. Level design could be a defining characteristic for games like GTA, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed, and it is definitely important to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. If you are worrying about WP:JARGON, then genre is no better. (4X, Stealth game, roguelike, dungeon crawl, tower defense, Hack and slash, god game, interactive movie and Toys-to-life are all jargon.) AdrianGamer (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
These things are mutually exclusive. If sources call it open world you're still not presenting a reason that it should be mentioned in the opening sentence while blatantly ignoring the alternatives ( "Linear shooter"? "hub-based action adventure"? Non-narrative survival horror? 80's themed dance game?) I just mentioned that demonstrate how inconsequential it is to the opening sentence and why it should not be mentioned alongside genre. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you got rid of the overly detailed descriptions ("Linear shooter" would just become "shooter"; "hub-based action adventure" becomes "action adventure"; etc), then they would be allowed in the lead, just like open world, which can't really be simplified any further. I think you are using over-exaggerated examples, of which I've never seen in articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm using the explicit opposites of Open World Action Adventure. Corridor based Action Adventure. You've never seen them because it would be stupid to say such a thing and so we don't do it, same way its stupid to say Open World Action Adventure in the lead sentence rather than mention it as part of gameplay. It isn't 2001 and GTA3 isn't something new, being open world isn't special, it's practically the default. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like to note that Grand Theft Auto-clone already implies an open world, so that's neat. Should solve at least some of these issues. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible need for a mass revert[edit]

KATMAKROFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has undone many of PresN and other user's changes to the WPVG templates, as seen in their contributions, here (scroll down a bit). As far as I know, consensus in this wikiproject is to use the {{WPVG icon direct}} for all the stub templates (that don't have a custom icon) and many other wikiproject related templates. Is a revert of their changes necessary? It seems like the user does not like the template, as shown by their userpage. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked his edit request at Template talk:Non-free video game screenshot based on the fact he does not have obvious consensus for his requested change there. His apparent rationales are (separately): "WikiProject advertisement", "ILIKEIT", and "BOLD". I believe this is a new user who does not know how Wikipedia works very well. --Izno (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since he claims he was just "being BOLD", he should know that the next step of BRD is the revert, so... reverting him. He has been informed of this discussion; if he doesn't like the new logo, then he/we should discuss it here rather than changing the logo in only some of the templates that use it (seriously, that's the entire point of the VG icon direct template, that you only have to change one place.) --PresN 12:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Top-importance" marking[edit]

What types of article do you specifically mark as "top-importance". From what I am seeing, I don't seem to find many articles relating to WikiProject Video Games with priority of "Top" within its project. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Importance scale details the kinds of articles rated top by this project and Category:Top-importance video game articles or this shows the 50 top importance articles. Sam Walton (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
We don't have many, deliberately. --Izno (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
And why deliberately? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft appears twice in Top[edit]

We have separately Microsoft and Microsoft Studios appearing in this list, whereas e.g. Valve (company) does not. I think some re-assessment might be necessary; and especially, we might consider the real-world impact of esports a bit more than our current assessment guidelines do. --Izno (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I reclassed Microsoft to 'high', reclassed esports to top. I think reclassing Valve to top is also a good idea, but it seems less straightforward, so I'll let the discussion continue first. I think it's a good idea to announce any changes to the ranking of top-importance articles here while the discussion is going on, so that no confusion exists. ~Mable (chat) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think both Ubisoft and Take-Two Interactive deserve their Top ranking, but then they do not seem to be as influential as the other companies ranked as "Top". AdrianGamer (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think top importance companies are primarily those that deliver major gaming platforms. In this manner, Valve would be relevant, due to Steam being a major platform, as well as the fact that Valve has released various influential games over the years. I'm fine either way. With Ubisoft and Take-Two, I don't know. I don't think too much focus should be laid on companies in general, as the company itself is primarily consequential because of their managing and producing roles, not because of their creative roles. ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered... in the 10 years I've been an editor here... what actually is the purpose of "importance" ratings? In my mind, it only helps editors and readers indirectly by highlighting the articles that need the most immediate and desperate attention, due to being the most vital to the topic and relevant to the readership. I've seen resources being wasted in reclassification discussions various times in the past, and I just wanted to say my two cents that it's probably not worth going down this rabbit hole. Article quality, I can understand. It is important to an editor, and even a reader as it gives them a guideline of how comprehensive and vetted the content is. But importance... I just don't see the appeal.--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Primarily it is to help projects like WP:1.0 (that is, what slice of WP:VG's articles would be most essential to have in an offline version). Additionally, for editors looking just to help and without any specific interest, we'd like them to focus on improving articles higher up the scale. Stronger core (top importance) articles make our project look better. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I feel like "top", for WPVG at least, is a (purposely) small enough set that it can be useful to keep track of what's in it. Anything beyond that and I personally don't like to spend time on it; I agree that spending time arguing about if a given article is "mid" or "high" isn't really a good use of energy. That said, I haven't actually seen a lot of discussions about the importance ratings in this project, besides this one. --PresN 14:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. There are merits in having a small subset of "Top-importance" articles. I also agree that it seems utterly irrelevant whether an article is High or Mid-importance. Low could potentially provide a hint of an article's non-notability? I don't know. Nevertheless WP:VG is lucky, only having had one Importance-related discussion. With Importance, and the similar Vital and Core article lists, it can be easy to get carried away. (Yay, "Video game" is included in both the Vital and Core lists!)--Coin945 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen a few discussions on this page related to assessment, usually to tune the guidance or to double-check the assessments toward the top of the assessment tree. Not one in the past year though, I'd say. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you dig too much, you'll see much of the WP:1.0 stuff is relatively inconsequential and subjective. It doesn't really matter if an article is tagged as a "Start" or "C class". Some GA's are painstakingly done with great detail, while others are rushed through with minor efforts and lenient reviewers. If it helps people with motivation and organization, it's not a bad thing, but it ultimately doesn't really matter much beyond that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Importance doesn't matter much. Discussing it every once in a while isn't too bad (especially when it's about top-class). I think the discussion of whether to discuss importance is a waste of time. I should note that importance ratings were actually one of the things that got me interested in Wikipedia, so the existence of the tags surely aren't all bad ^_^; Luckily, these discussions aren't that common anymore. ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, exactly. They don't hurt anything. That's why I'm not rallying to abolish them or something. (Honestly, based off my conversations with non-Wikipedia editors in person, I doubt most readers and casual editors even know the WP:1.0 stuff exists.) But if a more serious editor finding a mid-level article in terrible shape motivates them to improve it, then its a net positive at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)