Talk:Ion Fury

Video games Low‑importance

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.

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

Expand info

There is an interview at Gamingbolt about the game that could be useful. Egon Eagle (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "controversy" section due to WP:UGC

I have removed the edit that sourced a resetera thread. First this is obviously not a reliable source per Wikipedia definitions. Also the edits in question have a clear idealogical slant that violates WP:NPOV. Metalliqaz (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are now covering it - https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-19-ion-fury-studio-apologises-for-sexist-and-transphobic-comments-from-staff 2604:6000:1509:C143:BC72:68C8:3D70:B96 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like an edit was made to properly cite the section, but that was reverted for reasons that don't seem to be justified. The discussion should happen on this talk page but it's a lot of anonymous edits who probably aren't reading it. In my opinion, these kinds of things only last a few days then people lose interest and cooler heads can form an encyclopedic article. Metalliqaz (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the summary is dishonest. " Discord chat logs from members of Voidpoint were leaked, displaying transphobic remarks." So what was transphobic? A guy said it was absurd for virtue-signaling parents to decide that their infant children are trans. Did a REEEEEsetera member write the summary? --186.213.11.18 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for Wikipedia to decide what is "transphobic". Wikipedia is for encyclopedic information and you are talking about opinions. The article should reflect what the sources say, and "transphobic" comes from the sources. HOWEVER, I agree that the summary is, in fact, slightly dishonest. From what I can tell, there were no "leaked" chat logs. The Discord history is and was public, not private, and therefore not "leaked" but rather data mined by users of an internet forum. Metalliqaz (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what was actually said, the "transphobic" claim tells me that Kotaku is misrepresenting the facts, or presenting their ideologically charged moral judgement as facts. Kotaku is clearly not a reliable, unbiased source. --186.213.11.18 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I share your frustration about the obviously overblown and possibly manufactured controversy, but fact is that the Video Games Wikiproject counts Kotaku as a Reliable Source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources Metalliqaz (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I really wish it was removed as one given how even a cursory examination of viewpoints on Kotaku would be nigh-unanimous from both sides of the political spectrum that it is biased to a considerable degree, but then again, it's becoming increasingly evident that the site, Wikipedia, itself is facing a problem with ideological bias, primarily in that many articles related to semi-recent controversies often seem to soapbox for one side or the other. The article on Carlos Maza comes to mind. Hopefully this will not reach that level. Facts should not have a bias or an ideological slant. Tradeojax6 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish it wasn't. Kotaku is extremely biased to the point of being unreliable, I don't think anybody would doubt that. Their "journalism" is yellow and gonzo and best, I know they've done good work like their exposés on industry practices, but that doesn't make up for their other less-than-reliable work and the conflicts of interest their authors often don't mention. I've seen Kotaku journalists writing articles defending certain developers while never mentioning that those developers are personal friends or closely allied to the website. Moving on, I 100% agree this controversy probably isn't legitimate. It's some random quotes somebody said on Discord combined with a bottle that just said 'ogay' but the press coverage would make you think it was more than that. I feel like gaming outlets just want to stir up drama for clicks. 64.43.19.203 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Kotaku thing, though I really doubt anything will change on that front.Rody1990 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear bias. "Discord chat logs from members of Voidpoint were shared" From what I read the messages came for mainly one member Terminix who was talking about SJWs going out of they way to cancel others and that people who mutilate their own bodies due to depression won't fix their issues and a few other things that I hardly qualify as transphobic more. Sounds more like a rant against left. Kotaku article and the controversy comes from a single source: the forum posts from ResetEra. I don't think forum posts qualify as unbiased source to be honest. There are 41 pages of them trying to find something to cancel. Some played the game to find something to cancel and they only found two game elements labelled Ogay and fagbag which is very minor and were removed in subsequent patches. I would label this section as clearly biased. It presents incomplete information and makes it seem like all members of Voidpoint are aginst trans people. Which is not true. The article should specify that only a few members said some things that were intereted by some as transphobic. 89.26.166.221 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the people in those chatlogs often cited as being a member of Voidpoint (22_deathgrips, in said logs), isn't actually a member of Voidpoint. 47.55.206.178 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]