Jump to content

Talk:Broken Age

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

note for myself

[edit]

[1] will add in about an hr. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the refideas template to the top of this page. - X201 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need to condense impact section?

[edit]

It seems that, since it was written adding as the story developed, that the impact section has gotten quite long and bloated with too many specific examples rather than broader metrics that might illustrate the point better. I think this section should be rewritten to discuss the effects without listing every crowdsourced game to come after. Thoughts? Objections?Frogacuda (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make the change yet, but I would consider making a separate article to talk about Kickstarter and video games (as there's been some continued interest in that). Until we have actually more about this game, this section should stay as is, but there's steps to take afterwards. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not talking about taking out anything relevant to DFA itself. But just kind of listing each new Kickstarter as we go along is messy. This article in general is going to have to be condensed a bit to meet wiki standards at some point, anywayFrogacuda (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that DFA basically started this trend in game kickstarters, the information is loosely relevant, and presently without any other details on the game itself, the best place for it. It does meet Wiki standards. But that's why I'm considering moving it to a separate article, something on the effect of Kickstarter on video game development, or something, before we get more information about this game itself. All that information is relevant there so there's no need to trim it yet. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Grand Theft Auto III had a big impact on the industry too, but there isn't an article listing EVERY SINGLE game that showed influence from GTA3. It may be relevant to someone, but it's an obvious case of excessive detail that could be better said in fewer words. The proper course of action is to summarize, and to list examples briefly, not to be all-inclusive.Frogacuda (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the game that influenced, its the method of funding that received note. I don't disagree that in the future that section needs to be moved out, (summarizing that the game's kickstarter funding had an impact on this page) but I just don't know of the best end article for that to go into yet, and since we're lacking any other details on the game at the present, there's no rush to do it. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about the game?

[edit]

Scattered through the funding section are various sentences describing what the proposed game will be. I think it would be nice if that info were collated into a new section of its own. It just strikes me as odd to have an article this large about the making of a game, but so little of the article is actually about the game. Even a meta-statement about the dearth of public gameplay info would be good. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of being an adventure game, likely point-and-click and 2D based, there's not much else to say. Unless noticed by journalists, a "dearth" of information is not appropriate to include. I'm sure in a few months we'll start hearing more. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

crowd funding

[edit]

The game is no longer most backed crowd funded project of any type. Obsidian's "Project Eternity" raised more than 3.5 mil $ on Oct 16th 2012 Overmannus (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voice actors

[edit]

The Voice actors section was recently removed by Masem, with an edit summary that includes: "Don't need video or other sources, and we generally don't go into voices into any depth." I'm going to revert his edit. First of all, a "we generally don't go into" argument is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Not only that, we do list voice actors regularly. Here are 30 examples:

Extended content

Ignoring what we "generally" do or don't do for a moment, there is no reason to remove reliably sourced information about voice actors from articles about video games. (I had just added an additional source.) Visitors who are reading the Broken Age article do so because they are curious to learn more about the game. Why in the world would you remove information about its voice actors? That's rhetorical. People who don't care about that information can skip it. Others (including me) are happy the information is included in the article. How difficult is it to just leave reliably sourced, factual information in articles when you personally aren't interested in reading it? That too is rhetorical. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VG/GL. "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate." It is notable that some returned DF voice actors are in this, but the full cast list at this point we have no idea if it is important. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's it, I'm going to stop editing Wikipedia. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we need to change WP:VG/GL then. If a list of notable actors in a film is appropriate, why not for video games? Especially if they are mainstream actors. I can understand not listing non-notable voice actors and motion capture models, but notable ones (i.e. successful and well-known Hollywood actors) should be appropriate and should be included. I mean, they even mentioned the actors on NPR this morning. Just my $.02. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've since added back the actors here since the names involved are notable people both within the industry and were widely covered across it. But in general, the voice cast of video games are rarely recongized by secondary sources in the same way film actors are (critical discussion of the roles), and thus why we avoid inclusion unless reported by secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gnarly. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: Too soon?

[edit]

Is it too early to add a Reception section? I know it hasn't been released to the public at large yet, but surely some reviewer got his hands on one by now? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's been out, that embargo thingy is long gone, and reviews are there for Part 1, all in the public record. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the "embargo thingy" is long gone, why does the public release date still say "January 28"? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the game will not be publicly available to anyone until then. Right now , only backers of the KS can access it, so its sorta like a closed beta. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, that's what I thought, but I thought you nullified it by saying the "embargo thingy" was long gone. I guess I misunderstood what you were referring to. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry - what happened yesterday, just prior to the backer's release, is that Double Fine said that press and bloggers could not write about the game until the 28th (public release); some sites said they were going to ignore that embargo, others critized it being a last-minute thing, so DF called it off and let the press go ahead and review the game. If the embargo was still in place and there were "rogue" sites that still reviewed it, I would say to hold off. However, with that embargo nullified, all press pieces are legit and fair game to build a reception section on. I would follow the format of the Telltale Games episodic series, like The Walking Dead, where (here) both acts will recieve separate reviews. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie comment on the ending of Act 1

[edit]

This is a bit where we have to be careful. It is "clear" to the player that Mog Chothra has been the "ship" Shay was in and there's a lot of parallels one can make, and it is meant to be reasonably clear to the savvy player what has been happening. But this is interpretation that is not explicitly clear from what the game gives (for example, assuming that the Mog "ship" is not like a TARDIS, this means that Shay's experiences have been manipulated and that he really wasn't on a giant spaceship but something else.)

I fully expect that act 2 will resolve that issue quickly, but unless Schafer + co come out and say what has happened before that game's release, we can't say it ourselves yet. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems right. Marocco2 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd funding controversy?

[edit]

I understand there was some sort of controversy regarding the kickstarter funding? I've just seen someone commenting negatively about the kickstarted funding for this project. I know nothing about it, and I was hoping this article could shed some light; can someone add the relevant details? - 124.168.79.42 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversy" as best I know is one more on forums and the like, so it's hard to exactly source and thus include, though we have the elements that are central to it. The central complaint of the controversy is that the KS funds were not sufficient to cover all of the development, which required DF to split the game into two parts and engage with Early Access to get additional funding to finish Act II, which begs the question of how efficient they were with the original KS funding. DF has been clear in the subsequent Psychonauts 2 funding that they knew that what happened with Broken Age wasn't the best result and they learned from that. But for this article, there's no real sourcing to go into this "controversy" since it is mostly a user-based thing than one discussed in reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood, the "controversy" was mostly due to communication problems. After the record-breaking Kickstarter campaign DoubleFine decided to expand the scope of the game beyond what was described in the Kickstarter pitch and put their own money into the development as well. When the project hit a budgetary hiccup they decided to split the game into two acts so that the sales of Act I could fund the rest of the development. As this was mostly communicated to the Kickstarter backers, the rest of the world thought they had burned through their opulent crowdsourced funds and were asking for more money to finish the much smaller game that was promised in the Kickstarter pitch. --Jopo (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broken Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Reception Section ???

[edit]

There was and maybe is an exhortation template instance in the Reception section. It was from the year before last year (1915). This game has a relatively long article and there is some material on the reception of the game. This article cannot reasonably be said to be alarmingly short. There are enormously many things to write about. If someone wants to add to it, then that is of course OK. But telling other people what they should do does not make the articles better and does not make the work more fun or more efficient. Reserve this template for very important articles. --Ettrig (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section for this game is woefully short given the importance of the game (the name/devs behind it, the large KS etc.) and add to the fact that I know there are articles that reflect on the awkward structure of Act I vs Act II. I would have done it but summarizing reviews that have this disjointed approach (praise for some parts, weaknesses in others) is not trivial. So the section needs expansion, and those template messages are never supposed to be treated as "exhortation" but as an invitation for editors to help out: that's why the template says "You can help by adding to it.". I would agree that if, for example, I hadn't had the chance to add the comparison of Act I to Act II but the reception of both acts individual was fleshed out (about 5-6 para potenitally), then yes that tag is useless. But as is, the section is not complete, failing the qaulity VG project expects, and so the tag is fully appropriate. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you. But your non-warring behaviour is a very nice surprise. You say that within the category of vide games (VG?), Broken Age has high importance, your argument is that there were many partakers in the KickStarter (?) (KS) campaign for it and that the organization (?) (name) and people (?) (devs) who developed the game are imprtant people in the business. These are of course a valid arguments. Still, they must be weighed against the merits of other tasks in the Wikipedia work. I don't know how to do that. The number of alternative tasks is more than huge. But my impression is that this template occurs almost randomly distributed on a very small subset of the places where there are important facts to be added. Another impression is that it doesn't work. I have never seen this template be replaced by the facts that it asks for. Have you ever yourself made such a change? A more direct impression is that the template makes the article look (typographically?) ugly. The best reference material that I could think of is the statistics for the VG project here. This article is judged to be of low importance and of C class. There are 2000 other VG articles that are of low importance and C class. There are also 13000 low importance VG articles of start class and another 13000 VG articles of low importance that are of stub class. The stub class articles do have a template. But that template adds far less ugliness. It also adds more utility, because it sorts the article into a category. To summarize, the handling within VG project does not agree with your judgement in this case and does not add ugliness. But I reinserted the ugliness that you added, because you acted so decently in this conflict. --Ettrig (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance templates like those are used throughout Wikipedia across all projects to help readers who may be able help edit to invite them to participate. They are not meant to be ugly, though there are definitely a set of editors that agree with this; however, consensus is that they are fine when used in appropriate moderation. They shouldn't be used willy-nilly: on a B-class or better article, stamping one of those templates is not always helpful, but for lower-quality ones, it's helpful to readers.
Here, the problem is that this is the one section under the Video Games Wikiproject guidelines that is lacking that would rate this a B-class. Two short paragraphs on reception given how many reviewers were out there fails the appropriate tests of WP:UNDUE. Part of that is my fault, because I've principally been the editor on this and review sections are hard to write, so its one of those tasks I put off, so the tags (which I put there myself) also remind me that I or someone has to complete this process. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that you think this is important is manifestly untrue. If you did think so, then you would have done it by now. Or maybe it is too difficult for you to do it. Then you should not require that somebody else do that job. Almost two more years have gone by now. And the only effect of your tag is that the article is more ugly than it need be. In short: Stope littering the article with ugly tags that have no positive effect. Also stop trying to direct other contributors. You have your preferences for what we should do. We have our own. You have no ground for assuming that your preferences are more important for us than our own preferences. --Ettrig (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tags like that are not harmful and they aren't supposed to be removed until they are dealt with. They encourage editors and readers to contribute. The article still needs a larger reception section. I personally haven't gotten around to it because I've got close to 5000 other articles I have to watch and this is a volunteer project. There is no deadline to get the section done, but it does need to be done. --Masem (t) 21:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a volunteer project. We choose to do what we think is most important. But your actions in this case are inconsistent. Either you think this work is important, and then you do it OR you think it is not important and then you don't do it. But in this case you say it is important, but you do not do it anyway. Your actions show that you don't think this work is important. Yet you are telling the other contributors that it is important. You think you have more important things to do. So do we, evidently. This tag has NOT encouraged an editor to do what you propose. Yes, the harm of your tag is obvious. It disturbs the reader but it does not provide information that the reader can be expected to find to be of value. Definitive harm. No positive effect. --Ettrig (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy fact about Broken Age

[edit]

The most platforms of Broken Age is 9.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_Age&oldid=1206444671"