Talk:The Last Night (video game)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

This isn't even released. There may be an article around Tim Soret, but not the game. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The 2014 game jam version - which was released - received attention from secondary sources, so that alone could have established notability. There have been articles between then and now that document the progress on the game.
2. The game was revealed at E3 during one of the major press conferences and, ignoring any GG-related aspects around Soret, still has received attention in secondary sources to meet notability; that alone (if we didn't have anything before then) would make the game notable.

Yes, the game might not come out, at which point we mark it "was a planned video game", but that doesn't change the fact that there was plenty of coverage before hand before this hypothetical change. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Jam winning isn't notable. If it is, it should be at the article about the jam.
2. Revealed is still fails WP:CRYSTALBALL
3. If the game doesn't come out, that would be proof that this article shouldn't have been created.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It was noted in several RSes and discussed to meet the GNG that would have allowed for an article before the E3 presentation. And generally across the board for entertainment fields (movies, TV, video games, etc.) once that a work has been affirmed in development and there is some attention to how it was being made (secondary sources to meet the GNG), then articles are generally made, with the aspect that if the work did get cancelled and no further attention was given to it, then we can talk AFD.

Please note: I know there's the GG vector involved here. I was already investigating the game and planning to write this article before I was aware of any GG issue associated with this, and only recognized I had to include the GG aspects given how much noise was being made over it. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The GG aspect is too soon for me to really care about. Though I recommend taking WP:RECENT into acccount.

My point about WP:CRYSTALBALL is entirely that if this game doesn't release, then nothing else about it is notable enough for it to be on its own. Merge it with something else, the jam (and if the jam wasn't notable enough to have it's own article, then certainly the winner shouldn't be notable for that), E3#2017, or Tim Soret (though he might not be notable enough either). -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not standard practice for any published work (video games or otherwise). All the main Wikiprojects that deal with contemporary works generally have requirements that you don't create articles on a future work just at the drop of an announcement, but you can create one when there is reasonable assurance that development has commenced on the work and you can speak to that development from secondary reliable sources. (eg FILM says to wait until filming has actually started, not while the script is being penned). The fact that development is happening is the point where serious money is being invested into a project, and thus cancellation after that point is a rarity, which addresses the CRYSTALBALL issue (and again, this is across the board for film, TV, video games, etc.) If cancellation actually happens, but an article was already developed, then the fate of the article is then decided. In some cases, redirection makes sense, but most often, if one properly waited until they had sources about the development, we keep that article and simply change the "X is a video game" to "X was a video game" (see for example Titan (Blizzard Entertainment project) or Scalebound) Cancellation of game itself might be a notable subject affecting the creative people (studio, writer, etc. ) behind it. Also keep in mind that standalone articles are based on the WP:GNG, so if there is significant in depth coverage from secondary sources at any stage of a work's development, then a standalone article is allowed.

But that's all secondary to the fact that this game, prior to E3, would have met the GNG guidelines for the attention it got from secondary sources after the game jam. Even if the only thing that happened was that the game got attention from the game jam, and they opted not to expand it, we have enough RSes (at least 4 from a quick search) to talk about the notability of the game jam version. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this game anti-feminist?

The game hasn't been released yet and already certain people who are known for abusing feminism for their YouTube channels and pockets try to cash in on it.

If the developer is such a huge anti-feminist he surely deserves his own Wikipedia page where people can shame him instead of using this article as proxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.38.128 (talk • contribs)

Some commentators thought between his old tweets and the game's description that it was going to present a specific political/ideological viewpoint that was anti-feminism. That's their opinion, there's no other evidence to support it, but they opted to call the game out on that, creating a stir over the game once it was announced. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You say it. "thought", "opinion", "no evidence", "going to". That whole Controversy paragraph belongs to the talk page until these commentators have something to support their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.38.128 (talk • contribs)

We are neither endorsing nor refuting opinions made by those commentators or Soret and Raw Fury. There was a notable fuss made over what the commentators said right after the E3 reveal and that Soret/Raw Fury responded, which we are only documenting, not giving any opinion on. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You're documenting drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.54.172.56 (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

COI issues

@Timsoret:, assuming you are Tim Soret mentioned here, be aware that WP has a careful conflict of interest policy, particularly around the controversial elements. Also note that because of the unfortunate connection made to GamerGate, there are also potential issues related to editing around that. The COI doesn't prevent you from participating, but we are going to need to filter some of what you want to add. Some things are fine: such as clarifying the MacOS and Linux releases or departure of Adrian from the project. But with regards to what the elephant in the room is, we have to be very careful on the controversy stuff. I know, for example, there are a lot of other players that called you out on the tweets that don't need to be named (yet), just that once they were called out, the rest of the world picked up on it. We're not here to point blame at anyone but only summarize what happened. That said, on, say, the stuff from the Vice article, if you do think there are views that are included in that that you'd prefer to be highlighted over others, we can work with that. But we can't use this article to defend you nor to try to vilify you, we're trying to document neutrally both sides of a controversy. The fact that your past postings were brought up and affected this game can't be wiped away from what's been reported, but we can make sure your apology, Raw Fury's statement, and your clarifications are clear. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Yes it's me. I understand. Feel free to edit anything you deem too biased, really. However I'm sure that you have seen my good faith, considering that I waited for the things to settle down a few weeks instead of entering an edit war, and that I'm neither hiding my identity, nor trying to remove anything related to the controversy. I'm just adding details and clarifying statements, especially about two things:

1 - The public deserves to know that my controversial tweets mention that I stand for journalistic integrity, equality, inclusiveness, that I was egalitarian and humanist. My criticism of progressive movements in 2014 was targeted toward certain radical submovements like you saw in my previous edit and in my tweets where I mentioned "modern feminism" (specifically Third-wave feminism & Marxist feminism). I also explained to Vice that I separate values (which I support) and tentatives of implementation (which I allow myself to critique), and I think mentioning this would be helpful for readers to understand the mindset behind these deceptively limited tweets, for the sake of intellectual honesty.

2 - we need to address misconception about the content of the game like I did (there is a huge confusion around universal income, and this is crucial that people know the truth about the game).

I think we can solve these first two points easily. Now the last problem is the anonymous Twitter account leaking screencaps of long-deleted tweets before vanishing. This feels relevant to inform readers of it, because it indicates an intention. It didn't happen organically. Someone saved these in 2014 just before I deleted them, and waited until 2017 to make them reappear as if they still represented me. I think this is worth mentioning, without judging, but just to let people know how things unfolded exactly, factually. I even restrained myself from mentioning some of the obvious tweets manipulations (tweets maliciously cropped and hashtag added), because I can't source it properly on wikipedia as no journalist will ever cover this. I hope we'll find a reasonable solution to make sure we inform people more accurately than the current content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsoret (talk • contribs)

I can't immediately address these points right now but if we can pull from the Vice interview, that's a good start. The only thing I'm not sure we can do is the Twitter account that was up and then deleted, as none of the RSes noted this. (And trust me, as an editor that was trying to make the GG article more neutral than it currently is, I know how difficult it can be to find sourcing to smooth things out, I'm fully aware of the boat you are in). --MASEM (t) 19:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Tim, it's not just the years old tweets that people have a problem with. You and your fellow writer continue to like and retweet gamergate "celebrities" such as Ian Miles Cheong. You continue to awkwardly claim you're an "egalitarian" while conflating feminism with very minor extremists. Your understanding of Third-way feminism is cartoonish and based on stereotypes. You've yet to actually denounce Gamergate and the sexist groups formed around it, instead you continue to repeat that you "changed" without actually specifying how exactly are your opinions different. In short, you're more concerned with good PR than actually reforming. Azure94 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

To denounce Gamergate? Was this the end game? Ridiculous. Also IMC was anti-gamergate during a good duration of it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1404:E:BC21:84A5:8BB0:AD5F (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well to Tim's credit, just as there are not RSes that discuss that Twitter account, there are no RS sources that assert about his comments today as being problematic, short of some of the asides made by the Vice interviewer. The whole to do when you limit it to what RS say is about some tweets in 2014 came up and affected perceptions today. Azure is right that WP cannot play the PR spin game, but that works in both ways. --MASEM (t) 12:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"A controversy surrounding the Gamergate controversy"

GG as usual. Also a nice job not including just any mention of the initial acclaim from just after the reveal and before the character assassination (aka the "Gamergate controversy controversy"). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)