Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Renaming 3DO

[edit]

Talk:3DO Interactive Multiplayer#Renaming? Sceegt (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be cool if we could get some more input here. Not much in the way of discourse, just not much in the way of input at all, for what would be kind of a big deal move. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance over Concept and creation: a rant

[edit]

So I'm reviewing Boneless Pizzas' Ada Wong, where "Concept and creation" appears above "Appearances". This way of organizing character articles seems to be the norm, and that norm doesn't make sense to me.

Most of a character's bio revolves around the fiction surrounding them: the world they live, the people they interact with, etc. In the "Appearance" section, all of this fiction stuff is explained as necessary, for the sake of better understanding the character's role in the game. In "Concept and creation", these fictional details are glazed over because this section is about the character itself, as well as their real-world development. In this context, "Appearances" should come first, but it doesn't. In the context of Ada Wong, an "Umbrella" is mentioned in Concept and Creation but is not explained (this is not Pizza's fault). It is, however, explained in the next section very beautifully that's its a pharmaceutical company. If this explanation were to be moved up to the section above, it would complicate developer info with fictional explanations. These sections should be separate, but Appearances should be first for the sake of understanding narrative without losing the reader. When people read articles, they are dominantly reading top-down instead of jumping around.

Jesse Pinkman and George Costanza organize their articles this way. In fact, so do video game articles when they put "Plot" above "Development". So why not the characters? Is there some better reason for why we do it this way that I have trouble seeing? Panini! • 🥪 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. I didn't have a hand in creating the format, just replicated in the few character articles I created because that's what I had always observed elsewhere. I assumed we just wanted to kick the article off with more encyclopedic type content. I think in under-developed articles it can make sense - pre-clean up articles often read like "First Pikachu was in Pokemon Red Then he was in Pokemon Yellow. Then he was in Pokemon Gold. etc etc etc" I don't think that's a particularly great place to start. (Though its not great anywhere either.) But you may have a point, perhaps your order is better in a developed article? Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It ultimately depends on the character. Like with characters where the plot needs to be front loaded to understand how they were built around it (i.e. Exdeath) it's better to put the plot first. However with other characters like for example fighting game or Overwatch characters, often the plot is secondary and much shorter to their overall development. However in the case of Mario for example if we load the Appearances section first, we're throwing a metric ton at the reader who for a good chunk of the article's start doesn't understand how the character came about let alone evolved. It's case by case, but whichever does should explain concepts to the reader as it introduces them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I brought up at the FAC for Ada Wong. It makes sense why video games generally start with the Gameplay section over Plot (although even there I think there are cases where we're better off with a film-type synopsis before all else) but a lot of the info in a typical design section will lack a lot of context divorced from the general arc of the game appearances. A compromise is having some sort of Overview section that gives the broad strokes of the character (which the Wong article now essentially does) but it can still be suboptimal. There are certainly some character articles where it is a better choice to have the conception and design details first, but it ain't every single one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've increasingly been using appearances first, only not doing so if I feel like the concept behind a character deals with complexities that wouldn't feel right in appearances. For example, Pokemon species or Persona 5 characters. Ada Wong doesn't feel like concept first makes sense. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it should be for consistency. I followed the format from Jill Valentine (Which it went 5FACs). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Asmongold

[edit]

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his name within the article. - Skipple ☎ 01:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for opinions on sources for a GAN

[edit]

Heyo, I'm currently reviewing Rayman for GA. I found two sources that need additional opinions and would love some additional input at WT:VG/S#GamerInfo.NET and WT:VG/S#Vrutal to resolve them quickly. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting on how best to incorporate an IGN piece on Susan Banks, an activist on games accessibility. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion on Geeks+Gamers

[edit]

If anyone is interested see WP:RSN#geeksandgamers.com for potential deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading and review request for DYK

[edit]

Umehara ga kimeta has been nominated for DYK. The article is about an Internet meme that was born from a 17-second commentary video of a fighting game tournament. I would appreciate proofreading and review by English speakers who are knowledgeable about video games.--狄の用務員 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a lot of work on its prose. It reads like an advertisement (for a meme of all things.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. As for me, I do not intend to write a promotional article at all, but I am afraid that my writing skills are not enough. If someone would be so kind as to improve the article, I would deeply appreciate it. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing for Fromsoft's game engine

[edit]

While looking into Fromsoftware's game engine, I found that they are using something that is being called Dantelion engine or Dantelion2 engine. The best overview I have found is at http://soulsmodding.wikidot.com/topic:engines but it is self published. There is a mention of Dantelion in this ign article and this site of unknown reliability (I assume low reliability). Is this enough to mention it anywhere (eg, on the Fromsoftware page?) Or, at the very least, could this be enough to put the engine for Fromsoft games as "proprietary"? Gamerevolution list Bloodborne and Dark souls 3 as proprietary directly [1] so I assume at least that one we can set in the infobox. The IGN article lists Elden ring and armored core as being "Dantelion," although it attributes it to a youtube video (but at the same time also seems to assert this fact in its own voice). Also if you read the full IGN source they do make a good case for Armored core and Elden Ring being the same engine, whatever that engine actually is. The linked unknown site directly states that Elden Ring is in-house (ie. proprietarty) and using the so called "Dantelion" engine. I would suggest adding the following sentence to the fromsoftware article "Fromsoftware develops an in house game engine which it uses for many of its games including Bloodborne, Armored Core and Elden Ring." The engine has been referred to as "Dantelion." Or something along these lines. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems both unnecessary and sketchy to use as a source. Honestly it doesn't matter what the name of Fromsoft's engine is because it's proprietary. It's not helping anyone to know what it's internally called, just a minor piece of trivia better off on FANDOM or the like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can hold off on mentioning Dantelion anywhere. Should I find a source for each fromsoft game as being proprietary to add it to the infobox? I listed DS3 and Bloodborne already. If I need a source for each fromsoft game being propriety, would the IGN source count as a source for Elden Ring and armored core 6? Also, I don't agree with the point that it's not helping anyone. By the same vain, we would have to delete all "Development" sections on video games, as they don't help anyone either. Knowing what engine is used for a game tells you something about it's development. I agree that the source may not be strong enough though and does not really have enough detail to necessarily make it worth while to mention it. If the source mentioned some of the engine's features for example I would have a different response. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that knowing what a game's engine is is helpful. But simply "proprietary" can be used, as its internal name is not particularly relevant except in certain special cases where it is still heavily known and used as a tool (i.e. the Creation Engine). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZxcvbnmI think we basically agree then. What about the other DS games and elden ring? Can I list them as proprietary without a source? Can I use that IGN article as a source that they are proprietary? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN article cites Zullie the Witch, who is a dataminer but not a reliable source by any metric. Given that they admit to NOT actually doing their own research about the name of the engine, or even asking for a second opinion, much less contacting Fromsoft like a standard news outlet might do, I think that at most we can conclude Fromsoft uses a unique engine of some kind without getting too much into speculation. Still, I don't think it's even good enough for older games, since it just points vaguely at a time period they used such an engine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Thanks. I mostly expect that to be the answer. In the meantime, I found this article from koreaherald [2] that says Elden Ring is proprietary, so I used that instead. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, engines should only be named in the infobox if they can be wikilinked (i.e., they have their own independent article, or redirect to a dedicated section) per template documentation. It may be worth mentioning the proprietary engine in prose, but not in the infobox. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"|engine = Proprietary" is Ok in the infobox though right? Thats what I did for Elden Ring, DS3 and BloodBorne. I've seen |engine = Proprietary on a lot of games. to me it makes sense to do that. I'm not sure if by "It may be worth mentioning the proprietary engine in prose, but not in the infobox" you mean not to mention a specific proprietary engine (eg. "Dantelion") or not to list "proprietary" itself in the infobox, which I think is useful info. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking at Template:Infobox_video_game#Parameters, it seems like we should not even list "proprietary" as an engine. This doesn't make much sense to me but I'll remove the one's I set to proprietary for now. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 19 to August 25)

[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 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

August 23

August 24

August 25

@PresN: It probably wasn't picked up because it was a page move rather than a proper creation but Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass was created by Pokelego999 and me on August 25. CaptainGalaxy 16:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could Fortnite seasonal events be slimmed down in any way? It seems like a disproportionate amount of detail relative to the number of sources covering the everyday goings-on of Fortnite's live service. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely parts of the narrative that can be trimmed, but aspects such as the promotional crossovers actually do get well sourced in the media, and I was planning to make a side column for just listing those, so that the story dude can be slashed further. Masem (t) 21:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how viral Forestia's infamous The Fire Mountain chapter [3][4] will go next Halloween. XD Hopefully RSes will cover the section sometime so it can be emphasised in the article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Survivor duology

[edit]

Hi, all. This is just a line to let anyone interested know that I've just finished/had to finish an expansion and rewrite of Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor and its sequel. I thought I would be able to take them further than I have done, but I've burned out and need to put them aside (plus I've no idea how much work the GAN for SMTV will be alongside real life commitments), but it should be easy for someone else to pick them up and take them the rest of the way if they'd like. DS1 is basically GAN-ready, allowing for the usual tidying and any edits someone might want to make. DS2 still needs its reception sorting out and expanding, and there's no gameplay image, but sources for the former are on its talk page. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take on DS1. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Do you have plans to do any of the other characters once Mario is finished? I tried to do Toad a while back, but shelved the project after realizing that it would require rewriting most of the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a lot of the gameplay discussion can definitely be simplified from what's there. What's in the prose currently illustrates some bits well (like how his 3D movement was planned and the character it was based on) but then there's others that feel better suited for a series article (i.e. the Super Mario Run paragraph has little bearing on him as a character).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say use your best judgment but don't fear messing up its current status. The fact that you recognize it as a "crufty mess", unlike the last couple editors to do major work on it, means I your efforts will be a net positive. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only real "gripe" here is to be extremely cautious with "in popular culture". Per WP:INPOPULARCULTURE, "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. [...] When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." I'm planning on rewriting Pac-Man (character) further at some point in the future, and my approach to how to handle his appearances (as of right now, at least) was to only go in detail about Pac-Man's appearances that had some sort of relevance to the plot of what he appeared in, with a couple extra examples thrown in to wrap it up with "he's appeared in other stuff too". And this is despite the fact Pac-Man is probably the most referenced video game character in popular culture, possibly surpassing Mario. λ NegativeMP1 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mario article as it currently is appears to struggle with WP:INUNIVERSE issues, at some points it seems to treat Mario like a real person. It definitely needs some type of fix or rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of stuff that needs flat-out trimming. Mario needs a shave. He shouldn't have a beard. Panini! • 🥪 03:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Appearances section seems really awkward, given that there's no overarching narrative structure to the Mario games as a series, and most of them are of the form "Mario saves Peach from Bowser". It may be better to reduct that with pointer to the List of Mario games, though leaving the crossovers and other appearances outside that list as they are. --Masem (t) 02:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Masem, I haven't bumped into you in a while. Could you be more specific on what should be done with this section? Because this is the one I'm troubled on the most. The Super Mario sections have general overviews on the general story (save peach from bowse), so do you suggest I lean more into that regard? And go over how Mario is really just a character they drop in every game and link to that List of Mario article? Panini! • 🥪 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sentences are also very awkward grammar-wise and outright contradictory, like under Puzzle Games where it says "Mario has also starred in a variety of multiple puzzle games, but sometimes only makes an appearance and is not playable. The first of which to release was Wrecking Crew, designed by Yoshio Sakamoto. Surprisingly, in this game, Mario can't jump because of hammer's weight." Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game engine sourcing project feedback

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Good article reassessment for Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

[edit]

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

Featured article review of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

[edit]

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

In search of Famitsu issues

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1243929704"