Talk:Crown and Council

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Is this thing chained to Steam?

I noticed a news article about this free game, but is it something only Steam users can play? The official web page seems to offer source for bits and pieces, but it isn't clear to me if they add up to the whole thing. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Leaving myself some notes for future expansion:

Super deep lengthy review by PCMag: http://www.pcmag.com/review/344115/mojang-crown-and-council-for-pc
Briefer video review by Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-04-26-watch-crown-and-council-is-really-fun
The PCMag review has screenshots we use as FU. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mini-game that should be merged?

@Salvidrim!:, @The1337gamer:, @Maplestrip:, @Czar: First of all, I believe that on the Mojang page, this one should be moved from the main list of games down to the list of mini-games, as this was a small project created for a game jam, so it's inherently categorized as being on the same scale as the others, such as Catacomb Snatch. Secondly, I'm now wondering if we should merge this into the Mojang article itself. I've pinged the biggest contributors to this page, to see what the consensus may be on this subject. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minigame is generally a short video game present within another, larger video game. I could imagine such an argument working if this was a browser game or a mobile game too. It's freely made available, but it is still a full Steam release, so I don't really see what the issue is. We don't really care about definitions of "triple A" development. This isn't really a separate category of video game. As for a possible merger, it seems to me that this game has received plenty of reliable coverage, so I would oppose a merger. ~Mable (chat) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have any coverage besides its original announcement, the RPS article about the update, and the PC Mag review? If not, I'd merge the whole thing into the dev's article. It would not be much of an article if left to those sources alone, and it can always split out summary style. czar 00:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: There is a second Gamasutra article that goes much more in-depth on this video game [1], as well as a PCMag review not currently in use [2]. These are just the first two promising sources I found while Googling for news. ~Mable (chat) 08:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I had linked that PC Mag rev.) The game wasn't widely reviewed, so the Reception & Gameplay section will lack serious depth (videos don't archive well, so I'd hesitate at using Eurogamer's unless there's an archive-able transcript). I still think the sources presented are better condensed and explained in context of the main/dev article, but it's also an edge case: the topic has enough coverage to stand on its own if others insist, but since the coverage is mostly on development, the resulting separate article will have very weak sections. Either way, the coverage does present the game as a Mojang project, so its development history should be expanded in the dev's article. czar 16:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not reading your earlier post correctly. I do believe there are enough sources. More specifically, I believe incorporating all notable information in Mojang's article would constitute as undue weight there, seeing as this is a very minor title of this company. If Henrik Pettersson ever gets his own article, I can imagine it being merged into that. ~Mable (chat) 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I oppose a merge (but I did write 95% of the article myself hehe). I expanded with the Gamasutra development ref, reception can be expanded with the PCMag and Eurogamer reviews as well ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: If consensus is to keep this article, then I will of course be in favor of keeping it. On the Mojang page, I would be in favor of moving it to the Mini-games section, as it's in the same class as the other game jam products, just that the creator was the only one participating. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't oppose that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: I edited the Mojang page with a bump of this game down to the mini-games section, as well as removing the non-sequitur image from Catacomb Snatch that was included as a result of a merger discussion from like five years ago. I'm fine with this page remaining and I think the outcome of this discussion has been realized, so I'm content. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]