Talk:The House of the Dead (video game)

Topic

The character stories need to be in sync with House of the Dead itself in the game, not the series. Information about what the characters are doing in 2019 should be covered in conjunction with the House of the Dead III article.

• I've cleaned up the article conisderably. Story details are now in present tense; story and character details are now under one section; HotD detail placed before subsequent releases, movie.

Ports

I think something should be said about the home console ports of the game, including the unique version for the Playstation 2 that is part of SEGA Superstars, where instead of shooting, you punch the zombies. Sincerely, --Horace Horatius 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pictures of the bosses?

It would help if the pictures of the bosses were posted on this article. It would be even better if somebody could make articles of the bosses themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.17.133 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:4. Magician Screen (Old).PNG

Image:4. Magician Screen (Old).PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:House Of The Dead, Thelogo.gif

Image:House Of The Dead, Thelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"The House of the Dead (vide game)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The House of the Dead (vide game) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2 § The House of the Dead (vide game) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Plot

Hi Dilbaggg, it's unclear to me what you mean with your edit summary "This isn't opinion, the statement is backed by sources within the article, you might as well delete the whole plot by your logic!" First, you've been here for some time, try to follow WP:BRD. Second, your edit in question was just not necessary, it doesn't help with understanding the topic. That Hangedman kills two people in front of the protagonists, does the general reader have to know that to understand the plot of The House of the Dead? No, they do not. Third, competence is required: it's "hordes", not "hoards" and you misspelled Hangedman as "Hnagedman". Please discuss your edits in the future, I noticed you've been adding a lot of unnecessary fluff to plot sections on video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Soetermans, please read WP pages before citing them; making a couple typos is not even remotely a competence is required issue. And the very first sentence of WP:BRD is "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus." [emphasis in original] Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so demanding that a good faith editor discuss their edits in advance is not appropriate. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Appeals court ruling

This is in regard to TrainTrash's removal of the information on the Appeals Court ruling on Indianapolis's ban on violent video games. First of all, TrainTrash, each of the three times you removed this information you used a completely different reasoning, frequently contradicting your previous reason, which suggests that you're employing a "trial and error" approach to the issue. Comments like "it's junk" only further the impression that the deletion is emotionally motivated. If that's the case, I advise you to step away from the issue. If that's not the case, I advise you to pick one good argument and stick with it rather than throwing out a bunch of arguments that you abandon the moment someone asks you to explain.

Your latest reasoning is "The text on this article is quoting a (real) legal decision out of context. There is no other source from the time (news articles, ect.) that would validate the text on Wikipedia as written. if you can find such a thing, great, but otherwise it's junk and needs to go." I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like you're saying that Wikipedia can only use text that has been copied verbatim from a source. That's not the case. In fact, per policies such as WP:COPYVIO, we can't copy a source's text verbatim. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will expand here. I looked into the original edit to see how this came about and while I think it explains how this was added to the page, it should still be removed.

The text as it currently reads seems to be referencing a controversy in regards to this game when there was none. In 2000, Indianapolis attempted to ban "coin-operated video games with graphic violence or strong sexual content." Contemporary media covered it in this manner, as a broad ban: the House of the Dead was not pointed out specifically, Orrin Hatch did not go on TV with a House of the Dead poster, ect. This is a notable event, and can certainly be included on any pages devoted to panics about violent video games, but it was not anything that involved HoD at all (a game that had been out for several years at this point).

Where House of the Dead comes in is a Judge's decision in favor the arcade operators opposing such a ban. As part of his decision he cited several violent coin op games and describes them, emphasizing their ""literary character" and "the unrealistic appearance of their "graphic" violence" in order to show that such an ordinance was unlikely to withstand a constitution challenge. This required the the Judge to talk about the House of the Dead for a bit in an amusing manner. It looks like an editor here reviewing Appeals Court decisions also thought this was amusing and added it to the page, saying "Added review by U.S. Appeals Court judge to Reception section." As fun as this is, it's not really kosher and so someone took that text and moved it to a new section labeled "Controversy." Now the Judge's words, already out of context in the sense that they are not a real review and are meant to be emphasizing that the House of the Dead could be in no way mistaken for "obscene" material, now are further distorted. We can't keep this as is: it's a legal decision, quoted completely out of context, referencing a "controversy" that doesn't exist. It might be fun to add Richard Posner's thoughts on House of the Dead to the page, but as they stand right now they should be removed. TrainTrash (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the article text has "distorted" the judge's words. Everything you've said here was plain to me from reading the article text, even before I looked at the cited source. Also, your last statement seems to agree that the judge's words would belong in the article; if that's the case, then any problems with how those words are presented should be fixed rather than removing the content entirely, per WP:PRESERVE. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Everything you've said here was plain to me from reading the article text, even before I looked at the cited source."

Clearly that's not the case, as you've accused me of having different rationals for its removal and still seem confused as to what I'm arguing for.

The judge's word's were placed in this article as a bit of a gag: "here's an appeals court case that describes the House of the in a funny manner, let's put it in the "reception section" as if it was a review" (and also claim that the Seventh Circuit was "unimpressed by the graphics," which is not really true, but a bit of dry humor). This does not fit the guidelines of the Wikipedia "Reception" section, so someone moved it, but didn't get the joke and so placed it under the subheading of "Controversy" which I'm saying makes this seems as if the House of the Dead was at the center of a controversy over it's violent content, when again, it was not: the two parties, some legal scholars and three Wikipedia editors are the only ones who have even read this decision, which was written four years after the release of the House of the Dead.

WP:PRESERVE states that you should "fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't." We cannot fix this problem without excising the text in question as it does not belong in the page (when I said that "It might be fun to add Richard Posner's thoughts," that was not an argument in favor of keeping this, I was merely trying to be polite to the original editor who I'm sure wanted to highlight some humor in the legal world. But these are video games, which are a serious business, unlike the law.) TrainTrash (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Clearly that's not the case, as you've accused me of having different rationals for its removal and still seem confused as to what I'm arguing for."

By "here" I meant in the above post, not everywhere in relation to this article, and I said I'm confused as to what your argument is, not confused as to what you're saying about the cited source.

Reception sections are not intended to be strictly for reviews. They cover any notable public response to the article subject. Similarly, controversy sections are not intended to be solely for matters where the article subject was central to a debate about violent content.

"the two parties, some legal scholars and three Wikipedia editors are the only ones who have even read this decision", "But these are video games, which are a serious business, unlike the law."

I hope you're joking here, even though WP talk pages are not an appropriate venue for joking. If you're not, I can assure you that Wikipedia consensus is firmly against excising info on legal matters as non-notable. You can check with the folks at WP:Teahouse if you don't believe me. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am joking, as I believe this matter has spun more than a little out of proportion. But I'm also trying to emphasize that the original edit was itself a joke! And thus is firmly not notable in the context of this game. Richard Posner (or his clerks) happened upon using this game as an example in an obscure legal decision. If he has happened to do the same with any number of novels or films (as I'm sure he has in the numerous legal papers to his name), they would not have been considered for inclusion in those pages.

You say that "reception sections are not intended to be strictly for reviews" but clearly another editor disagreed with this notion for this source, and I would too, as the Judge is not articulating his thoughts on the game critically (indeed he causally dismisses video games entirely throughout the decision) but rather articulating why the law is unlikely to withstand any constitutional or other legal challenge (only part of his rational of striking down the statute). At least the original edit was mostly just the quote itself. As it stands, nearly all the text that surrounds this (out of context) quote is incorrect. I will annotate:

When the American city of Indianapolis attempted to ban violent video games in 2000, it argued that The House of the Dead was obscene [not true in the slightest, the law does not list any games by name] and so unprotected by the First Amendment [this was explicitly not their augment, read the decision again]. This required U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner to review the game at length [this is not true, he happened on it an example], ultimately finding Indianapolis' ban was unconstitutional [he did not do this, he struck down the statue to offer relief to the arcade operators] . Unimpressed by the graphics [this is an editor's attempt at humor], Judge Posner wrote: [and then his boilerplate description of the video game].

All of your replies thus far have been opposing my arguments only on the level that excising material in general should be avoided when possible and ignoring any of my arguments in the specific. Could you please articulate why (and how) you think we should include this source and how you would fix the text if you are so convinced of the merits of having it here? TrainTrash (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You force me to be blunt here: I never said that I believed the text needed to be fixed. You said it needed to be fixed, so it is up to you to figure out how it should be fixed, not try to pass that work on to others. I have ignored your arguments in the specific because none of them present a case for the material's removal. Moreover, despite my clear advise to you in my first post on this thread ("pick one good argument and stick with it rather than throwing out a bunch of arguments that you abandon the moment someone asks you to explain."), every post you've made in this thread has followed the format "I was just joking with my previous argument. My real, real reason for wanting to delete the material is...". So I ask you, at this point, how am I supposed to take any argument you throw out seriously? Martin IIIa (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"I have ignored your arguments in the specific because none of them present a case for the material's removal."

My last post lists detailed objections to the text itself. You can't possibly say that "none of them present a case for the material's removal" without explaining why you believe this. Your other objection is evidently that my rational as expressed is inconstant. I don't believe that's the case, and it's difficult to take this in good faith when you continue to just ignore what I'm saying (and indeed are openly proud of ignoring my arguments).

"It is up to you to figure out how it should be fixed"

I have laid out that it is my option that the text is unfixable and should be excised. That is my fix. I have went sentence by sentence on this. You continue to ignore everything I've said here and lapse into procedural arguments for why this edit is unacceptable to you. I am at a complete loss here. Please engage with my argument. TrainTrash (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Once again you are denouncing your own previous argument: "Could you please articulate why (and how) you think we should include this source and how you would fix the text if you are so convinced of the merits of having it here?" That was you who said that. It was also you who said in regard to your earlier arguments that "I was merely trying to be polite to the original editor" and "I am joking," so I don't know why you're now trying to claim that you don't believe you're being inconstant why you've already expressly admitted that you are.

I have already explained why your arguments do not constitute a case for removing sourced material, but here it is again: Read WP:PRESERVE. You have not identified any problem with the text that, even if I agreed it were a problem, would not be correctable as laid out under that policy. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think we really are talking at cross purposes. I might ask for a third opinion, but first I would like you to address what I am arguing, rather than continuing to cite policy at me or claiming that because you believe my argument to be inconsistent that this invalidates everything I'm saying. Hopefully we can get on the same page.

Two posts up I annotated the text I excised and went over why I think every single sentence of the text as written is incorrect. I will post it again. This is the basis for my edit: I personally think that none of these are correctable under WP:PRESERVE, as if they were "corrected," (my prescription here is deletion) the quote would be of no relevance to the article. Please read my arguments and If you disagree with any of my annotations, please tell me what you disagree with and how you might change the text. I am not asking you to make this edit or to "pass that work on to others," I am asking for your thoughts so we can collaboratively come to an understanding about what value this quote may have to the article (I don't think it has any, but I would like to know why you think it does because we might get somewhere with that):

When the American city of Indianapolis attempted to ban violent video games in 2000, it argued that The House of the Dead was obscene [not true in the slightest, the law does not list any games by name] and so unprotected by the First Amendment [this was explicitly not their augment, read the decision again]. This required U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner to review the game at length [this is not true, he happened on it an example], ultimately finding Indianapolis' ban was unconstitutional [he did not do this, he struck down the statue to offer relief to the arcade operators] . Unimpressed by the graphics [this is an editor's attempt at humor], Judge Posner wrote: [and then his boilerplate description of the video game]. TrainTrash (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"rather than continuing to cite policy at me or claiming that because you believe my argument to be inconsistent that this invalidates everything I'm saying."

It's not so much that it invalidates your argument as it leaves me with no motivation to address your argument further than I already have. It's a case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". And we cannot simply ignore fundamental Wikipedia policies because we don't like them. Sourced content is the fundamental building blocks of Wikipedia, and policy clearly lays out the exceptions where such content may be deleted wholesale. Having nitpicks with the phrasing in the content is not one of them.

Your annotations claim "not true in the slightest" and "this is not true" but you don't identify any issue with the fundamental truth of the content. Whether or not the law identified The House of the Dead by name, it was covered under the law; whether or not Indianapolis explicitly said the game was not protected by the First Amendment, the ban obviously implies that they thought it was not; whatever circumstances prompted Posner to review the game's content, he reviewed the game's content in relation to the law; and whatever official justification was used for striking down the law, it was struck down. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"leaves me with no motivation to address your argument further than I already have. It's a case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Given that we have spent about 2,000 words of debate talking in circles, this strikes me as quite unproductive. This is not a court room. You are not finding the inconsistencies in my argument during cross-examination to the astonishment of the jury: there's no one else here. Rather, we are two people trying to find the best solution for what I feel should be a very simple edit.

I will return to the text of WP:PRESERVE, which you keep citing at me, even though I have explained how my edit fits within that framework. One of the final options there is to "consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia." I think this is a good solution to our stand-still given that you believe strongly in the merits of this source.I have gone ahead and listed it on the "Violence and video games" talk page in hope that it may find a home on Wikipedia. TrainTrash (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's unproductive, and pointed out to you in my first post to this thread that it would be unproductive. Don't blame me for your own decision to disregard my advice.

You'll have to point out to me where you explained how your edit is consistent with WP:PRESERVE. WP:PRESERVE lists four issues under which sourced content may be removed: verifiability, no original research, inappropriateness for Wikipedia, and undue weight. So far as I can see, you have not invoked any of them.

Simply declaring yourself the victor is not the solution to any stand-still. When another editor contests your removing sourced content, there are only two possible solutions: (1)You provide a legitimate reason for removing the content, or (2)you let it go and move on. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not declaring myself the victor. I still have not gotten into why you think the source is relevant to the page as you refuse to say. I thought this might be a decent way to guide the conversion towards this and address the notion that I'm ignoring WP:PRESERVE as it's following one of the suggested courses of action.

My edit is for undue weight, which I've outlined in depth. I.e. if we "fix" the (largely incorrect) text surrounding the quote, it becomes apparent that it's not relevant to this page. Every time a judge uses a piece of media in an argument it does not necessarily merit inclusion on that film or game's Wikipedia page.

You keep giving me ultimatums that say that I need to "provide a legitimate reason for removing the content." I have, multiple times, which you largely ignore on the basis that I am crying wolf, something you decided in your first post and refuse to budge from, which goes against the spirit of debating in good faith. After repeatedly outlining my objections to the text, you finally said that they were "nitpicks with the phrasing in the content," and then further said that my argument that the text surrounding the quote was all heavily misleading or outright false was wrong: that I somehow didn't "identify any issue with the fundamental truth of the content" because you don't want to read the actual source. I am going to ask for a third opinion in hopes that a different set of eyes might help us get past this, but I find this all incredibly obtuse. TrainTrash (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am inclined to agree with TrainTrash's removal of the controversy section, as the wording went far beyond what was actually in the source and fell afoul of WP:Criticism. However, I do also agree with Martin IIIa's argument that the reception portion of an article need not only include reviews of The House of the Dead in the traditional sense of the word. While Posner may have been commenting on the artistic merits of the game only as a means of arguing for whether the law should be upheld, he was still assessing the game in a serious manner. I'm not exactly sure whether legal opinions fall under WP:SPS, but Posner's "review" of this game appears in a couple reliable sources, so I'd say Posner is reliable for his opinion of the game. Therefore, I would support the reinsertion of Posner's "review" of The House of the Dead, so long as it had a much more accurate description of the circumstances that led to Posner's "review". Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290Do me a favor and remove the dispute from the 3rd opinion page once you've given your opinion. Saves me the time of navigating here only to find it's already been addressed. Thanks. Manuductive (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you much for your thoughts. I guess I would not be wholly opposed to including Posner's thoughts, but I do think it's important he's not really interested in the seriously addressing the games themselves outside of the bare minimum required to advance the specifics of this argument, namely that video games have a message, "just as books and movies do" (it reads like he had a clerk find some footage of two video game and then briefly described them). Indeed he describes the zombies in House of the Dead as "conjured back to life by voodoo," which they aren't in the game: he doesn't know or care. Similarly, when he he evaluates Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, he refers to it as, "surprisingly, a feminist violent video game" on the basis that you can play as a women: some glib humor from a bored Republican judge who believes that "we are in the world of kids' popular culture." Something that emphasizes this would be the best frame. TrainTrash (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)