Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Placing developers/publishers/key notable people in series categories?[edit]

Would it make sense where a category for a game series to exist, say, as Category:Hades (series), to include the developer, publisher, and key personnel (with standalone articles) to be included in that category? — Masem (t) 03:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On OpenCritic[edit]

Not looking to agitate the slightly dated agreement that OpenCritic is an accepted source that reliably performs the function of a review aggregator. Conceptually though, a question I am wrestling with is: are what aggregators aggregating useful or reliable measures of mainstream critical reception when we wouldn't use most of the sources they are aggregating? Are we comfortable citing an aggregator when what it captures may mostly be from those websites?

OpenCritic has an interesting double-edged dilemma: it's very open. Its coverage anecdotally seems to outpace Metacritic in finding site reviews. This would be great and indicative of a more representative aggregator with wider coverage, but the problem is that in doing so it imports reviews from a vast amount of unreliable, unassessed or obscure WP:VG/S review websites.

Take a recent game with good coverage, Balatro. Metacritic has 33 reviews comprised of 19 reliable, 2 situational, 7 unknown and 5 unreliable sources. You could say that Metacritic is far from perfect either, but despite the inclusion of a few duds, the aggregator's score is largely capturing the scores of most of the mainstream reliable sources out there on the game.

In contrast, OpenCritic has an impressive 47, consisting of 14 reliable, 3 situational, 18 unknown and 9 unreliable sources. In this case, there's more unknown or dubious sources affecting the score. For the few gems it finds that weren't captured in Metacritic, there's also just a bunch of random "by gamers for gamers" site in the mix. Not particularly a big problem though.

This issue really rears its head once you get to indie titles, where in those cases the majority of games constituting an OpenCritic score will be from unknown or unreliable sources. In that case, using the score is a bit misleading: what is being displayed is not a mainstream consensus but only that of whatever reviews the aggregator could scrape together.

Sorry for the essay, but as posed above: is having a second aggregator that captures the views of any and all reviews largely what we expect it to do for us? Is a more judicious approach needed in some cases? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only in response to your first sentence, not your point generally, but I'm not sure the OpenCritic debate should be characterised as "slightly dated" considering the RfC that led to its inclusion in the MoS was less than a year ago. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, was looking at the RS page so missed this disucssion. The discussion did not really touch on the issue I raise above from a skim, looking more like it followed the lay lines of problems around duplication and the merits of the two different scores used on OpenCritic. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, we don't really care where an RS gets it's information from, only that we deem the publication/website/author/etc. to be reliable. If the BBC started using a non-RS to get it's information from, it might mean we'd go towards pushing for the BBC to be unreliable (if the info was consistently wrong), but that wouldn't mean we'd have to have all those locations to be an RS for the BBC to also be an RS.
The big difference in this case is that Opencriitc by it's nature shows exactly where it gets its info from. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the vast majority of reviews aggregated by Rottentomatoes or Metacritic for movies to be from "unreliable" or "unknown reliability" sources as well. I would say the point of aggregators is to be somewhat transformative of the underlying data in that they reveal something that you wouldn't be able to see just by looking at a bunch of raw numbers. There's no principled way for an aggregator to include only "respectable" (reliable) reviews and there's no feasible way for an aggregator to include all reviews. As long as you're aware of these limitations on "authoritativeness", there's no problem that some unreliable sources get aggregated. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mario Kart: Double Dash[edit]

Mario Kart: Double Dash 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft launch vs official release info[edit]

Is there anyone who knows the Manual/Style on how to treat soft launches in video game infoboxes? Should they be listed as part of the official release info or be sectioned off to just the prose? For example, Plants vs. Zombies 2 soft-launched first in Australia on July 9, 2013, before having an "official" release of sorts worldwide on August 15, 2013. There was a similar case with Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!'s year-long exclusivity to Malaysia, as this is a common occurrence with mobile titles.

What is the consensus on this? Should soft-launch releases be listed in the infobox when they're defined as "rehearsals for a full release" by many? Venky64 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For things like early access, we do list that date - until the official release - in the infobox with the addition text of being early access (See like Hades II). When the game hits full release, that early access date is removed in favor of the official release. As long as you can document that (more than just a storefront page), this approach would be fine for soft launches. --Masem (t) 12:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth documenting the soft launch in the Development/Release section but not the infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video games with the same title, branding, etc.[edit]

I've crossposted this from WP:HD at the suggestion of a respondant.

There are a lot of video games (particularly from the 90s and 2000s) where two video games exist with the same title, branding, cover art, and everything-- but with different developers, on different platforms. A notable example is Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent, a less notable one being Need for Speed: Undercover.

However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what should be done when these games are extremely different from one another. This happens most frequently with handheld games, where the versions across systems share practically nothing beyond top-level genre and theme. If a game exists on Game Boy Advance or Nintendo DS as well as home consoles, those two games likely have next to nothing in common.

I'd like to ask for guidance as to when a game should be separated into its own article, and when it should be included as a sub-section within a top-level article. While this may seem like it has a blanket answer, I do not believe it does, and I ask that you read my examples for my explanation of why. I'd appreciate rationale so I can apply these to future articles and edits. If I should not be separating these games into their own articles, I would like advice on how to better organize information about them in existing ones, as existing articles do this in many different ways and almost always end up mixing the information in with the main article body, leaving it hard to research specifically these other versions.

Here are four examples:

Road Rash (Game Boy Color) came out in 2000 and uses the branding and theme of Road Rash (1994 video game) but the content is most similar to Road Rash II. The confusing part here is that it came out in 2000, shares a name with the 1994 game as well as Road Rash (1991 video game) but uses the content of neither. At present, the GBC version is described inline on the Road Rash II page, but little information is given and there is no reference to its relationship with the 1994 game. The 1994 game's article is already covering five other versions that share little with the GBC version, and I am concerned that introducing the GBC version into the mix would make for an overly long article that veers a bit off topic, while creating a nightmare in the Reception section. I believe Road Rash (GBC, 2000) should have its own article.

Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed is a 2000 racing game for PlayStation and Windows. The PS1 and PC versions are wholly different videogames that share a concept and soundtrack but little else. There is also a 2004 Game Boy Advance game by the same name, which is a translation of the PC version to the handheld. It is currently only mentioned in the article's infobox. Because it shares many assets and its design with the main version, I believe these three versions of the game should share an article.

However, in stark contrast to Porsche Unleashed, later Need for Speed games exist across multiple handhelds with completely different developers. Need for Speed: ProStreet was available on home consoles as well as Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable. The home console versions were developed by EA Black Box, while the DS and PSP games were each handed off to separate B-Teams that made completely different games. I am torn on whether these justify their own articles, but they do not make sense structurally within the existing article. The barrier is that there isn't a whole lot of acceptably sourceable information about each of these ports outside of reviews.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear is a multiplatform tactical shooter. There are significant differences between the PlayStation version and the others, but they are minor enough for WIkipedia's purposes that the PS1 version can coexist with the Dreamcast, PC and Mac ones. However, there is also a Game Boy Advance port. It is not mentioned in the body of the article at all and is a top-down game with wholly different content. It is a completely different game from the others, and I feel it warrants its own article. Similar conundrums exist for the Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell games on GBA, which are side-scrolling action games. But again, I fear I would struggle to find enough information about them without dipping into WP:OR

Please let me know how I should proceed. I am going to begin working on a draft of the Game Boy Color version of Road Rash. Kaceydotme (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. If there are similarities or a lot of asset sharing with other versions, they should still be in the same article. But if they are wholly different games in every way, like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Advance video game), they should absolutely have different pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first example I’ve found where the pages are separated, thanks! Kaceydotme (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few other separated ones: Over the Hedge (video game) and Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS video game). The Incredible Hulk (2008 video game) and The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game). TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key factor to consider for a separate article is not just the vast differences in gameplay but whether there is significant reception and development information to estaish separate notability if the tile. The examples given all appear to be cases of a "lesser" platform compared to the main ones it was released for, and I suspect reviews for those cases will be few, making the argument for a separate article weak. — Masem (t) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be done on a case-by-case basis. If the games are substantially different, third party reliable sources cover the differences, and there's a lot to say on it, that's a good case for a separate article. If not, then probably don't split. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, the first consideration should be whether each version is independently notable enough to warrant a separate article. If not, then the other version should be mentioned in brief in a section of the main article, regardless of how similar or different they are. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Downloadable Content" vs "Free Update"[edit]

Is there a general consensus here about full content updates being called DLC? For instance Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight and Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night all seem to use "Downloadable Content" for what is ultimately part of the game itself rather than a separate thing that one must actively download. The downloadable content seems to never mention this type of content being included in the term. Dead Cells on the other hand as a for instance more properly terms these as 'free content updates'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by the common term for such things and that seems to be "DLC". One example concerning the Hollow Knight DLC, which is technically an update. I think "free DLC" is the established common name for updates with a sizable amount of new content.
Technically the word is simply "downloadable content" which is vague enough to extend to any sort of post-release extra content. "Paid DLC" is therefore used to specify that it costs money. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think commonname really works as an argument here, as "free update" would be similarly common and natural, and less jargony to boot. I don't think it's cut-and-dry, but I also think both are fine and could perhaps even be used alongside eachother. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard to distinguish in the modern era of live services with mandatory content updates. Personally, I’d draw the line at “can the game be fully played and enjoyed, including online features, without installing this?” If yes, DLC. If not, update. Kaceydotme (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right but it's not really of an issue of with/without. If you buy and download Hollow Knight, today, you get all the so-called free DLC with no way to remove it (outside of Steam downpatching shenanigans). That's more what I'm getting at here. And one can fully play a game and enjoy a game without, for instance, a minor change to a boss's HP that happened in the first patch (just a random example, not a specific game) but then a new area in the middle of the game that's fully integrated into the gameworld gives a somewhat different experience. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a free update, available to all platforms, with no way to remove it for all versions of the game (thinking about console releases here) then I'm inclined to call it an update. Kaceydotme (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 7 to May 12)[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 14:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

May 7

May 8

May 9

May 10

May 11

May 12

Bot came back online after a few days, so May 5-7 are scrunched up together into the 7th. And Alexandra IDV wins this weeks award for "article GAd in the same week it was created" for Shin Megami Tensei J. --PresN 14:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts on References and parodies of Indiana Jones? The title itself is clunky, cultural impact would probably be more suitable, but this list has three references, one of which is pointing to the Indiana Jones wiki, which is user submitted. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Indiana Jones in popular culture" assuming that the article can be sourced per TRIVIA. Masem (t) 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS vagueness: review scores without boxes[edit]

Hey all, I'm having a discussion at Talk:Lucky Luna that I thought that I should escalate to the project for clarification. Basically, another editor (Zxcvbnm) added a review box to the article, but there's only one scored review for the game. I removed the box on those grounds, but they think that we should then have that review score in the prose. The relevant section of the MOS is WP:VG/REC, which starts off saying that scores should not be in prose, but then says that that's what the review box is for, and shortly thereafter affirms that the review box itself is optional. Which can be read as a contradiction.

So, my question is: is our intention that scores should only be in the review box, whether or not the article actually has one, or that it should be in the review box if that box exists, and can be placed in the prose if the box does not? --PresN 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a common sense solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: Which one is? --PresN 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think review scores need mentioning in prose unless they're otherwise notable (like Grand Theft Auto V and Ghost of Tsushima being two of three western-developed games to get a perfect score from Famitsu). I don't think the reader's understanding of Pocket Gamer's Lucky Luna review is improved in any way by knowing the score. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. If the article says "Will Quick of Pocket Gamer [said] that it struck a "balance [...] between casual and engaging" we don't know if that is a positive part of an overall negative review, or representative of the review as a whole. A score makes it immediately obvious if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game, as it is intended to do. I am in favor of giving the reader as much relevant information as possible, not removing it purely for aesthetic reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that knowing "if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game" aids the reader's understanding; if that was the case, we'd have articles where {{Video game reviews}} was twice (or thrice) as long to include all relevant scores. There are several journalists mentioned in that section whose overall opinion isn't mentioned, so I don't think it's necessary with Pocket Gamer either—though, to be fair, the preceding sentence states they nominated it for Game of the Year and the following paragraph adds additional praise, so I think it's pretty clear what their opinion is regardless. I've not seen anyone mention aesthetics. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, which aligns with what I think the MOS says, is that scores should never be in prose, because they just don't impart actually useful information to the reader. It's numbers jammed in the middle- knowing that PG gave it 4 stars doesn't really tell you what they liked about it. (They thought it was fun and pretty. It's not a deep review, or game.) In fact, it's the only scored review of the game, out of four reviews and a couple half review/look-at-this pieces, because a lot of outlets feel that the scores aren't helpful even within the context of the review.
In any case, my proposal is going to be to change the line in the MOS from "{{Video game reviews}} exists for such a purpose." to "These scores should be limited to the {{Video game reviews}} template, if present.", to remove ambiguity for what to do if there is no reviews box. --PresN 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the purpose of the box is to (A) save space in prose and (B) allow readers to quickly glance at a swath of scores to gather a consensus on the general reception. When there's only one or two scores, those purposes completely fall apart. You don't save much space, if any, and it doesn't give you a good assessment of reception because two reviews isn't enough to build any kind of consensus. So in this situation, absolutely no box. I've included scores in prose before, but I think that's a case-by-case editorial decision. If they had a lot of praise for the game, and maybe some minor complaints, saying they gave 4/5 stars isn't imparting any more information. However, if they scored it a perfect 5/5, or a 1/5, I think that would be interesting to share. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a draft[edit]

Hi all. Video game writing is not exactly my wheelhouse, so I figured I would come here for help. (Which is not to say I don't play video games – just that I don't usually write about them.)

As a bit of background, I am a regular at WP:CFD, and as such a will sometimes help out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (where discussion outcomes which cannot be handled by a bot are listed for processing). To tackle the longest-outstanding item on that list, I started "working" on Draft:List of video games with AI-versus-AI modes, which is set to replace Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 3#Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes ended with consensus to listify. (By "working", I really mean "started working but then quickly realized that I have no idea how to do this".)

Any help—from "here is how to go about doing this" or "I turned this into a FL while you weren't looking"—would be very much appreciated! Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got to be honest, I don't think this is justifiable as a list. I could be wrong, but I really doubt you can find sourcing to get it to pass WP:NLIST: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
That said, if you can find multiple sources talking about the concept of AI-vs-AI modes in games, then you need to figure out what goes in each row/bullet point of the list. Right now you have the name; you need a reference to show that the game has an AI-vs-AI mode, and then what else? Probably release year, genre, and a notes field describing how it works in that game? --PresN 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Would be excellent to write prose about what an "AI-versus-AI" mode is and how players interact with it. But I agree that finding sources on this might be hard, especially now "AI" has such a big fad meaning. You can check the reliability of video games-specific sources here: WP:VG/RS. The search engine there is likely to come in use as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both! I have dropped a line to the person who originally suggested listifying to see if they had sources in mind. (I admit I cannot find any which indicate this meets NLIST.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick search I did find two possible helpful sources: Gamespot on Madden and Polygon mentioning it in Super Mega Baseball 3. The latter is good for a listing but not much else, the former is a very particular news story. It's not enough yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing gameplay sections for games with virtually identical gameplay[edit]

I'm working on the Fallout 3 article on my sandbox right now, and I've realized that while writing the gameplay section, I'm copying nearly entire paragraphs from the Fallout: New Vegas gameplay section. This is because Fallout 3 and New Vegas have virtually the exact same gameplay. New Vegas did make minor tweaks, so I can't directly copy entire paragraphs, but it's damn close. If you haven't played the two games, I cannot overstate how similar they are. So my question is, is it okay to basically just copy the gameplay section of New Vegas for Fallout 3? There's only so much I can talk about that hasn't already been stated in the New Vegas article. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Sometimes it can't really be helped that two games in the same series have identical gameplay elements. A while back I encountered a similar scenario while sprucing up the early Mario Party gameplay sections a bit (see Mario Party 1, 2 and 3 for reference). I say as long as all info in those sections are properly cited, it shouldn't be the end of the world if two gameplay sections read in the same way. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since New Vegas builds on F3, leave a {{main}} on NV to point to G3's gameplay, provide a very high level of game mechanics, and then mention any significant new features if there are any. — Masem (t) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who read New Vegas' article aren't necessarily going to go and read Fallout 3's. It's fine if they are extremely similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific features that NV has that are discussed in development or reception that, despite being the same as F3, have different takes, then those could be expanded on where necessary. Remember that we are writing for the general, non-video game playing reader, so gameplay coverage is low-value material on our articles. Masem (t) 00:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Gameplay section would be pretty important, since readers would want to know what the game is like. It would certainly be more important to the average reader than the Plot section. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general reader should not be considered someone that has played video games, but like we do on academic technical articles, we assume a reasonable familiarity with what video games are. We don't need to spell out what a FPS is on a page like Doom (beyond providing the blue link). But at the same time, we also don't write to the level of detail that a gamer will want to know, as sites would typically do for reviews. Masem (t) 19:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they aren't someone who plays video games, they would probably want to know what you do in the video game. They probably care more about that than the plot or how it was made. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you use sources related to Fallout 3 when writing that section, I think it's fine to have very similar information between articles. I say this because I've seen some articles do something like "X game is very similar to Y", then all sources on X's gameplay are about Y instead. I don't think this would appropriate and potentially enters WP:OR territory. Skyshiftertalk 00:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very very rare to not see sources make comparison in gameplay to a previous game on the sequel or additional installment assuming the new game is sufficiently notable. I do agree that without sources that say "Y is similar to X" then yes, it can be OR to make that claim. But this definitely is not the case for F3 and F:NV. Masem (t) 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do copy several sentences from Wiki article to another you should in your edit summary 'Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution'. per WP:CWW.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA question[edit]

Okay. So, this is something that I saw raised by the editor Martin IIIa to explain edits to the page Deep Fear. Leaving aside my feelings on the subject, and wanting editors opinions, but do you think the GA/FA process "encourages editors to attach references to claims which they don't support"? I'm not saying they didn't have valid concerns about Deep Fear, just wanting some additional clarification in case we need to tighten up the review process. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both GAN and FAC seem to at least identify if there are claims made that need sourcing or attribution if there is no nearby source, and there usually should be a spot heck if sources actually support claims. But before I would take an article to either, I would make sure the sourcing is as good as I think it should be such that any citation questions are quickly resolved dropping a reused online cite where needed. The processes should not be "find my sources for me" or an under sourced article, particularly at FAC (that should lead to an immediate quick fail) — Masem (t) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: That makes sense. The user's full post is on Deep Fear's talk page, so you can judge for yourself. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more of an issue that should be taken up with the reviewer than the process itself. Verifying sources is a required step and if they were skipped over and given the honor system, that's a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm in part responsible due to being the one who used those sources in the first place. Though I agree the reviewer should've picked up on that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honor system makes sense if you have someone that has, say, 10 FAs under their belt with confirmed sourcing, and there's no indication of bad faith involved (like, someone racing FAs through to win a Wikicup). Eg, if it were someone like Ferret (for example), I'd trust that what sources are present are correctly being used, though would still spot check the more contentious statements. Masem (t) 19:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At GA reviews, I have in the past asked a nominator to provide a longer excerpt/quote from a source that was unavailable to me. This can be a helpful balance when source accessibility is a problem. At WP:VG, we're lucky a large percentage of our typical sources are available for free online, but when sources aren't available we have to be critical and at least try to confirm unintuitive or surprising claims. This is one of the primary goals of the GA process. If verification of online sources fails and an article still passes as GA, then that's really sloppy... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over at[edit]

Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Early_home_computers that might be of interest. CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two platforms, same review[edit]

I have a review that was published on GamesRadar+ website and on PC Gamer UK. How should I present that information in the article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicating reviews/articles used to be more common on the internet. A lot of Gamespy reviews got republished on 1UP, for example. If you can, try to figure out which one is the "original" publication and only use that one. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can, for posterity, note that the review was re-published by a different magazine on the talkpage. In my mind, this can suggest that it's considered a high-quality source. It can also serve as an additional archive of the source. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really suggest a high-quality source in this particular case: It's simply a matter of both publications being owned by Future. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the print version, you can cite both by adding the URL to the "cite magazine" template. Or if you use "cite web", in the website field write something like "GamesRadar+ (originally published in PC Gamer UK). --Mika1h (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 13 to May 19)[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 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

May 18

May 19

Before you sneer, cast your mind back to the nonsense you thought was funny when you were ten years old. I promise it was just as dumb. --PresN 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Melinoë (Hades) seems awfully early and the reception section is based on pulling a couple lines out of reviews of the game while in early access. She might likely get an article later, but I'd wait until the game has its full release or more about the development comes out. --Masem (t) 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that to be the case, there are multiple articles in the reception section about Melinoe first and foremost. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick questions[edit]

I'm just wondering about two relatively minor issues concerning the introduction and infobox. 1) Should the first sentence in the intro include the initial year of release, as in "Kill death murder" is a 2024 video game..." I know that's how films are introduced but is there a standard for video games? 2) In the infobox, should the platform be listed as "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows"? Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:VG/LEAD says that you should have e.g. "is a 2017 action-adventure game" in the first sentence, and I know some people really insist on it, though its not universal.
2) Typically just Windows. --PresN 14:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: Gamer Network acquired by IGN[edit]

IGN Entertainment has acquired Gamer Network from Reed Pop, and while no site yet has been labeled for discontinuation, there are layoffs happening across Gamer Network sites due to redundancies, like Brandon Sinclair at Games Industry.biz
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ign-buys-gamer-network-sites-layoffs-in-progress/1100-6523610/?ftag=CAD-01-10abi2f — Masem (t) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days, every single source from some point in the future and onward will be all IGN. Panini! • 🥪 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better IGN than Valnet, I guess... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia would even look like in that hypothetical future. What will people do? Will we devolve into writing articles like "You won't believe what Link wears on his feet! (Brown shoes found in a treasure chest!)"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with instant layoffs, of course. https://twitter.com/ethangach/status/1792945062151594281 IceWelder [✉] 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λ NegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up 1UP.com as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly? Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of new format for List of Xbox 360 games[edit]

I started a discussion regarding a new format at Talk:List of Xbox 360 games (A–L), would like some feedback Famous Hobo (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly warm take: We should MOS the entire concept of "platform lists" and make most, if not all of them, consistent in format. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested this some years ago and was shot down regarding standardization of tables like this. Masem (t) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV plot in Senua's Saga: Hellblade II[edit]

Has anyone played this game and can replace the badly written plot summary in the Wikipedia article? Or should elements of this oldid not have been removed? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1225161759"