Talk:Deadlock (video game)

Development history and Citadel - probably should re-add the paragraph about Citadel

So, probably better to mention this in a talk page thread than attempt having this discussion in edit summaries. I originally included a paragraph about Citadel in the development history because various sources [1] [2] [3] indicate that Citadel did, in fact, become Neon Prime (which susbequently became Deadlock) - however, I mentioned that the initial cited reports about the Neon Prime project indicated that it seemingly wasn't Citadel at first (but that later cited reports indicated that Citadel became Neon Prime). I'd rather not unrevert the removal of the Citadel paragraph unannounced, but I'd argue that we really should mention Citadel (and what it was going to be) in the paragraph about development history of this game (like how the article about Team Fortress 2 discusses the scrapped initial concepts for that game). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the reliable sources, most which are relying on Valve News Network (Tyler_McV above), and even with those, the connection between Citadel and Deadlock is not very strong. Neon Prime to Deadlock, absolutely, but how Citadel all connects is very iffy beyond being a project that was worked on ahead of Neon Prime. It seems very hard right now to justify that. --Masem (t) 13:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

However, the sources do indicate that Citadel became Neon Prime, which itself became Deadlock. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm with Masem on this. There may have been some ideas from Citadel that got incorporated into Deadlock, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Citadel "became" Deadlock. I think it's safest to just not insert any inconclusive speculation for now, at least not until something more substantive from sources comes out (which, y'know, considering what the page is about, who knows when that'll be, but still). silviaASH (inquire within) 14:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Citadel stopped and Neon Prime started about the same time, but that doesn't mean Citadel became Neon Prime. Its worthwhile to keep Citadel in mind once we actually get more information about this game, but until we have better confirmation how it connects, its just another of Valve's internal games that got nowhere. Masem (t) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

All of the game files for Deadlock are inside a folder named "citadel". [4] This proves that the code name citadel is related to Deadlock's development. IroNinja5 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many Source game exes were named the default "hl2.exe", and one can assume that "citadel" is merely used as a common code base for Source 2 games. JungleEntity (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the Citadel info, per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. It's directly stated by two reliable sources, used in the article, to be the same game:

• The game has been known as "Neon Prime" and "Citadel" at prior points. [5]
• McVicker has reported on the project before when it went by the codename Citadel. [6]

If we have reason to doubt this is true, just avoid stating it in Wikipedia's voice and write "According to Ars Technica, it was previously known as Citadel" etc. Popcornfud (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be included at all (mind me I was the one who removed the Citadel sections). I'm pretty sure Tyler McVicker has backtracked on Citadel being Neon Prime. If the source's source is unsure, I think we should err on the side of caution as well. JungleEntity (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that the game's internal folder is referred to as "Citadel", so my personal view on that has changed, although I still think we should err on the side of caution with including development history of the game right now, especially since Valve itself has said nothing, and hasn't allowed media to come in and ask questions either. I'm thinking now even including the Neon Prime section is still shaky at best. JungleEntity (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't really get the hemming and hawing here. If reliable sources say X then we should also report X, at least until other sources say otherwise. If X turns out to be wrong, then that will be reported in sources and we can update the article. And if we're really worried we can say "According to [source], X" rather than put it in Wiki's voice. Popcornfud (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mbd the only source that mentions the connection of citadel to neon prime us VNN, which we are not going to source directly but through RSes quoting him. And while VNN is generally been right in the past, I would still wait until we have a second independent confirmation about this. Masem (t) 17:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware it all derives from VNN, but IMO as soon as it's funneled through a RS I'm comfortable reporting it on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of? Citadel was never the really the game's name just the code name within the console commands and folder. So it could be fair to say that it is worth a mention as it's code name; not what the game has ever been referred to.

i.e `citadel_aircontrol_speed 50` (https://deadlocked.wiki/Console_commands) Lockiiiiiii (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hero shooter term may be innacurate

I believe it may be more accurate to describe the game as simply a "third-person moba shooter" rather than a "hero shooter / moba." Characters with unique abilities are already a staple of the moba genre, and this game seems to be a moba first and foremost. So, I believe the phrase "hero shooter" is a maybe not a misnomer, but simply a bit of an odd (and redundant) way to put it. Further, the term "third person moba shooter" provides all the same information as the current wording, in addition to information on the perspective of the game. JustToEditDeadlock (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

SUPPORT: Hero Shooter this game is just simply not even remotely. Since "Hero Shooter" is a class based shooter game with MOBA inspired mechanics hero abilities and mechanics. Whilst Deadlock simply does not have defined hard class roles (i.e Tank, dps, support) just only characters designed in a way to be a suggest role with abilities and stats but can be out specked into a niche builds that is outwidth the hero's designed role though the items/shop.

Deadlock is just simply a Thirdperson MOBA shooter and has nothing to do with Hero shooters even tangentially. Lockiiiiiii (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It seems that this RM is at a “deadlock” and after being relisted twice, I don’t see any solid consensus either way, with a very slight lean towards oppose. With that is mind, I’m going to close as no consensus found. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Deadlock (video game) → Deadlock (upcoming video game) – I have realized that the 1996 game Deadlock: Planetary Conquest was commonly referred to as "Deadlock" by critics. I believe the title needs additional disambiguation, eventually being replaced by its actual release year. The current disambiguation is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the current disambiguation and the hatnote at the top of the page is sufficient. Additionally, I think it's safe at this point in time to consider this game the primary topic for the title Deadlock as concerns video games, as this game is currently far more well known and more likely to be what people are searching for when they search for "Deadlock video game". The compared pageviews of both pages seem to support this conclusion, as the traffic of this page has been consistently and overwhelmingly surpassing that of the 1996 game since its creation. Given this data, I don't think any change is necessary. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Deadlock: Planetary Conquest is obviously also "Deadlock (video game)". This should be disambiguated with the year when it's released. Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The older game has a subtitle to distinguish itself. OceanHok (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is where natural disambiguation (using the former game's subtitle) easily solves the problem alongside hatnotes. Masem (t) 12:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Natural disambiguation principles mean that the old video game doesn't need a parenthetical. They say nothing about whether naturally-disambiguated titles can conflict with non-naturally-disambiguated ones. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Though "Deadlock" was a common shorthandle for the game's name, it wasn't necessarily the common name. Meanwhile, Valve's Deadlock is not only better known already, but it does have "Deadlock" as its name and inhabits that common name space. BOTTO _(T•C) 15:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support and a little surprised at the !votes above. To be clear I am normally not a "always disambiguate everything" partisan but the 1996 Deadlock was not that obscure a game (e.g. compared to some of the major obscura that I don't consider to have much meaning); it was released by Accolade, which was not an indie studio. The subtitle was also basically decorative. I've played it and the subtitle hardly comes up. Nor did contemporary reviews use the full name all that frequently. Basically, if the title didn't require disambiguation, it would have been perfectly valid to place the article on the 1996 game at just "Deadlock" (e.g. see Heroes of Might and Magic II for a contemporary example which simply drops the game's subtitle "The Succession Wars" in the Wikipedia article title). Given that, there should be further disambiguation here. SnowFire (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary change as a similarly time-wasting discussion will be made when the game actually releases, and it does absolutely nothing to benefit the context of the article. Even when considering the 1996 game, Valve's Deadlock is expected to be more impressionable and well-known to Wikipedia readers than that fairly niche game (for the general public), so there is absolutely no point for this move to happen. (The redirect made of target after the game releases will also be a great hassle.) MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Calling the original Deadlock "niche" is pure WP:RECENTISM and online bias. It wasn't niche, as can be evidenced by the tons of print sources for it (Mobygames lists dozens). Hopefully the closing admin notes that this Deadlock has a quite large CURRENT fanbase, but this should not be allowed to drown out valid arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You're correct about it never having been niche. But, it still had a perfect subtitle that solves the disambiguation issue nicely. Trying to give the older game the title for the sake of COMMONNAME is only going to create more unnecessary problems and confusion. BOTTO _(T•C) 21:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Think about it this way, if someone saw "Deadlock (video game)" it could be referring to both games. It is an incomplete disambiguation. That is what this discussion is about, making the disambiguation of this game more precise. The other game does not need a change since it is naturally disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A Not to be confused with template at the start of the article is sufficient in this regard. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If this game were from any other development studio, I'd be inclined to agree with the recentism argument, but this is a Valve game. Deadlock's fanbase is merely an extension of Valve's fanbase, which can hardly be called recent. Unless this game is, like, a catastrophic Daikatana-level failure which sullies Valve's reputation forever (and I think that's unlikely), I think it's safe to say it's going to be well remembered in the future, if only for, if nothing else, being one of the first full, proper games from the studio in years (Half-Life: Alyx barely counts, given that very few people played it on account of the VR exclusivity). And even if it did bomb, such a failure would make it remarkable in itself.

Deadlock is not some hot new indie title from a freshman studio that could turn out to be the next Undertale just as easily as it could be a simple flash in the pan- its pedigree makes it obviously notable by default, and it's going to be the more well-known game for the foreseeable future, regardless of whatever it turns out to be when it's properly released. The older Deadlock, meanwhile, on top of being already disambiguated by its subtitle, is a nearly 30 year old game by a studio that doesn't exist anymore, and I don't think anyone is going to be caring about it now except for game history nerds, or YouTubers making video essays or Let's Plays about "The OTHER Deadlock", and neither of those groups encompasses the majority of readers. As I already evidenced with the page views, most people are looking for this game, and not the other one, and those who are looking for the other one are already adequately helped by the hatnote.

We have to keep in mind when making these decisions not just whatever we as editors consider to be more worthy of note, but also what the majority of readers are looking for when they search for a certain term. If any of these things change in the future, then another discussion may be warranted, but that time has not yet come. And further, as Mimir points out, moving this page to "(upcoming video game)" will not be productive, as it will only furnish another discussion on this issue down the line, so it's better, for the time being, to leave the situation as it is. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The issue seems to me to be whether the upcoming video game currently at Deadlock (video game) is the primary topic of that title. This is discussed above but not explicitly. IMO it needs more focussed discussion. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE: What is the point when the game will come out and be release out of closed beta within the next half year and would cause you to just edit it back to 'Deadlock (video game)' anyway? Lockiiiiiii (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• • @Lockiiiiiii: I don't think you follow what's being debated above. Suppose Valve's Deadlock comes out in 2025. Should the article be at Deadlock (video game) then, or Deadlock (2025 video game)? The problem is that there's another video game called Deadlock. We sometimes do "partial disambiguation" when there's a big gap in significance (e.g. if we have a major movie vs. an obscure New Zealand documentary with the same name). If partial disambiguation isn't merited here, then we need a date, hence "upcoming" for now and "20XX" when it comes out. The supporters aren't arguing to move it just to move it back to the same spot once it releases. SnowFire (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    The other game Deadlock: Planetary Conquest has a clear subtitle and which it's article's name includes. Valve's Deadlock is just 'Deadlock' and thus it should just stay as Deadlock (video game) I don't think there actually is much point in changing it to Deadlock (2025 videogame) it is just a pointless change. Lockiiiiiii (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    +1 to Lockiiiiiii's point. And further, for all we know, it could be Deadlock (2026 video game) or even (2028 video game). Changing the title to any of these when the game releases will only serve to see this issue relitigated once again, and waste time down the line. I am also still seeing no clear argument from the supporting side upon why the 1996 game needs such special treatment in terms of titling, other than a myriad of IKNOWIT, OLDAGE, and CRYSTAL arguments. If the "Planetary Conquest" subtitle is truly not suitable as disambiguation (again, I don't see why that's the case, but whatever), then why should it not be the Accolade game's article that gets retitled "Deadlock (1996 video game)" while this one remains as simply "(video game)"? I don't see why the older game should get preferential treatment here.

    To be honest, I believe this entire matter needs no discussion whatsoever, and this move proposal is a textbook example of a solution in search of a problem. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more. "Planetary Conquest" serves its purpose, just as "Combat Evolved" does for Halo. BOTTO _(T•C) 14:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per what Zxcvbnm, SnowFire Axem and others said. More complicated than it should be. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Deadlock (video game) is ambiguous, and needs to redirect to Deadlock#Video games. 162 etc. (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. A solution in search of a problem. Wikipedia is a website that people use in the present. We do not and should not bend over backwards to cater to hypothetical readers in the past or the future. 70% of outgoing clicks from Deadlock go to Deadlock (video game). There's a strong case to be made that the (upcoming) video game is already the primary topic, but I will leave that argument to others. At the very least, the natural disambiguation of the older game's subtitle is more than adequate to eliminate any confusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  A topic does not automatically gain notability, or primary topic status, simply because it is current. See WP:DPT: "historical age is not determinative." 162 etc. (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good thing I didn't base my position on that then. It is an egregious user experience failure to force 70% of readers to click multiple extra times to get to the article they want instead of just delivering it to them. The minority of people who are looking for the 1996 game are more than adequately served by a hatnote. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  > "force 70% of readers to click multiple extra times"

  Deadlock is not nominated here. That dabpage will remain in place, and readers seeking the upcoming video game will have to click through regardless of the outcome of this RM. Clicking Deadlock (upcoming video game) instead of Deadlock (video game) will not negatively affect user experience. 162 etc. (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  A reader searching on just "deadlock" will be sent to the disambiguation, no question, and there's no way that either game has the PRIMARYTOPIC for word "deadlodck" However, based on the stats, readers that come searching for "Deadlock video game" are more than likely to be looking for the new game and not the older game. If the moves are done, they all will still be filtered through the disambiguation page, while keeping it as is means that most of those readers will be on the page they want to be at. Thus, it makes no sense for this move. Masem (t) 22:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  There really aren't any positive benefits either with the effect of disambiguation being minuscule for the average reader, and we would have to go through all this trouble for moving whenever it gets an official release date AND it may get delayed again. What does not need to be fixed should not be fixed. Oh joy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT: now that we have just the additional context on the top of the page; I feel as if the discussion has ran it's course and should be closed. Lockiiiiiii (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Including "upcoming" in the title will improve clarity and isn't going to really affect readers' ability to find the article (and would help them choose the correct video game article if they land on the Deadlock dab page, which will still be a dab page regardless). The other video game is also obviously known as 'Deadlock' (which is obvious from the cover art of that game – the font size for 'Deadlock' is huge and the subtitle is tiny). The current readership has some WP:RECENTISM effect. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why adding "upcoming" is a necessary measure for clarity since there's not another video game just called Deadlock that already exists. It's not like we need to distinguish between the 1996 game, this game, and more games also titled Deadlock which need to be disambiguated between. There's only two of these, we only need readers to be able to easily tell one apart from the other. I suppose calling the first one "(1996 video game)" instead of using the Planetary Conquest subtitle, and this one "(upcoming)" wouldn't necessarily degrade the reader experience in this respect (though it would make it annoying for readers finding the disambig page instead, as mentioned above), since readers would still be able to tell this game apart from the old one just as easily as they are now, but I also don't see how it would improve it. And since it wouldn't really improve anything, and only would cause busywork for us editors who have to move this page again later (and quite possibly have this discussion again), then why change it at all? silviaASH (inquire within) 08:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: One thing I'd like to add to this regarding the notion that "Deadlock (video game)" lead to the disambig page rather than this page is that the status quo of the article since its creation has been this title, which made complete sense given that this page title was a redlink prior to this. If that were to be made the case, we would break all existing incoming links to this page from outside Wikipedia, leading to the situation described by Axem and Masem. As there's been no compelling motive for the move given in my opinion for the reasons I already outlined, I'd strongly support retaining the status quo of the current article titling, at least until after the game's release.
  If WP:RECENTISM is really such a big issue here, then why not, instead of implicitly CRYSTALBALLing about how the newer Deadlock will not be as important to readers in the future, just wait and see how the ratio of interest around both games bears out and then decide later whether or not a move is warranted? If it really is recentism, and if Valve's Deadlock really is a flash in the pan that won't be remembered nearly as much in the future, then surely the idea that "Deadlock (video game)" ought to redirect to the disambig page will be redeemed after we've all moved on. We can just wait. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the Cursed Apple

maybe it's hard to say either way since this could be changed later in the game's development, but I think it's currently wrong to use the Cursed Apple as the actual name of the city Deadlock takes place in - it seems to be more of a (rarely used) nickname for New York (Ivy sometimes says "welcome to New York!" after getting a kill, the shopkeeper sometimes asks "first time in New York, Talon?" when you buy from him as Grey Talon, there's a newsstand selling a paper called the New York Oracle, etc.)

if this needs to come from a news source, I'd appreciate it if anyone could find one discussing the setting which explicitly makes this clear ! Leetchr (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're uncertain if the source is indicating that this is actually the name of the city, then we can just omit this for now. I've removed it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)