Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column - this time I mean business! :)

OK, in a previous thread, I dealt with Dragon's early-80s "The Electric Eye" column, which ran in most issues from Dragon #33-63 and profiled aspects of computers including some video games. I managed to add tidbits to several VG articles (and created stubs for some of them), including early text-based games Civil War and Star Trek, Scott Adams's "Adventure" series (Adventureland, Pirate Adventure, Strange Odyssey, and Ghost Town), as well as other early games Dungeon of Death, Android Nim, and Time Traveller. The column ended abruptly, and I found only two more reviews in the early 1980s, one of which covered Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, Akalabeth: World of Doom, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, and another which covered Dunzhin.

Oh, but no, I'm not hardly done yet!  :) Dragon's "The Role of Computers" was the second of three computer related columns that I'm aware of, so I'm hitting that next. It started in 1986 in issue #110 and was quite a bit more in-depth than "The Electric Eye" on computer games and ran for much longer. As I had stated previously I was going to add a mention of the column to the article of every game that had been reviewed. The column ran in most issues up through 1993 in issue #196 with "The Lessers" as reviewers. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the following issue; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. I'll take care of "Eye of the Monitor" if I make it through "The Role of Computers" in the first place; not sure what Dragon did after that third column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

"The Role of Computers" usually tackled more than one game per issue; since it ran for some 70-80 issues, I'd say that safely puts us into the realm of over a hundred games from 1986-1993! As I've stated earlier, I don't intend to do more than put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. Hopefully there is a higher percentage here of games which already have articles, because needing to toss up a stub more than occasionally will definitely slow me down! Issue #110 starts the column off with a review of the MacIntosh version of Wizardry, which I will get to shortly! BOZ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1986-1989

I decided to hit up the other reviews from 1986 as well, adding blurbs to Rogue (112), Wizard's Crown (114), and The Bard's Tale (116). I might do 1987 and maybe even more, tonight; we'll see. :) BOZ (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #118 had three reviews. The first one was for OrbQuest, The Search For Seven Wards, from QWare, Inc. for the MacIntosh. I could find absolutely nothing on the internet for this, so I wonder what to do; I will not create a stub at this time since I can't find any additional info. Also reviewed in this column were Roadwar 2000 and World Builder. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Got more: The Bard's Tale II (120), the first Might and Magic (122), Realms of Darkness (122, created this one), and Black Magic (124). One thing of note is that just about every "The Role of Computers" column also contains a number of one-to-two paragraph mini-reviews. I have not been touching on these because that would really slow me down, but perhaps at some point I'll go back and catalogue those as well. I'm going to start looking at #126 momentarily; it's worth noting that up through #124, the column was semi-monthly, but #126 states that the column begins going monthly (probably due to its popularity at the time). BOZ (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #126 actually does not contain a review, although it promises an upcoming one for Phantasie III; the column is mostly devoted to talking about the state of the computer gaming industry at the time. #127 similarly contains no review, but discusses in detail the awarding of the AD&D license to Strategic Simulations, Inc.; I'll have to make sure to get back to that one before long! :) #128 features Shadowgate and a few mini-reviews. I think I'll take a break there as that concludes 1987; since 1988 apparently begins the first full year of monthly columns, that should take some work and time. :) BOZ (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I realized that with issue #128 they started giving the games ratings (1-5 stars), so I will be adding that as well from now on. :) I will also add this to any articles with one of those ratings tables, since that will help. Got Tower of Myraglen (129, started this one), Wizardry IV (130, preview), Phantasie III (130), Legacy of the Ancients (131), and Beyond Zork (132) tonight. More to come, sooner or later! :) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First time for this, but I figured it was just a matter of time! Quarterstaff from #133 already has the review noted in article - one less for me to do. ;) Added blurbs to Dream Zone (134, started this one), Alternate Reality: The City and Alternate Reality: The Dungeon (135), Dungeon Master (136), and my personal favorite: Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny (137). Will be back before long to finish off 1988. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Star Command (138, started this one). #139 had no column; 140 had several smaller (less than one page) reviews. You know, I have been skipping all the smaller reviews less than one page so far, so I think I'll do the same here. I'll try to come back and get all of these, depending on just how long it takes me to get through all the featured reviews. Will start 1989 before long - hopefully tonight! BOZ (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #141-142 featured smaller reviews on a number of games; I've skipped them for now, but I'm definitely starting to feel like I'm going to have to make an effort to make a "second trip around" on this column and pick back up on stuff like that. :) #143 I've already taken care of, as part of my plan to take Pool of Radiance down the path to GA. :) When I got to #144, I realized that the smaller reviews might be getting to be a trend, so I'll try to do at least the first game reviewed: I did Arkanoid (144), Wizardry V: Heart of the Maelstrom (145), and Might and Magic II: Gates to Another World (146). Will conclude 1989 before long! BOZ (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Got these: J. R. R. Tolkien's War in Middle-earth (147), Hillsfar (147), Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon (148), Curse of the Azure Bonds (149), the original Populous (150), Silpheed (151), and Dragon Wars (152). That concludes 1989, and I'll begin 1990 before long. :) Enjoying this so far at all? BOZ (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1990-1993

Got Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain (#153), Mines of Titan (#154), Citadel: Adventure of the Crystal Keep (#155, started this one), Champions of Krynn (#156), skipped #157 for now, and finished with Bomber (#158, started this one as well). Will get more soon, but not necessarily tonight! BOZ (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Loom (#159). BOZ (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Conquests of Camelot: The Search for the Grail (#160), DragonStrike (#161), Ultima VI: The False Prophet (#162), Secret of the Silver Blades (#163), and MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy (#164, started this one). That caps off 1990; been slow going because I've been busy, but will start 1991 before long. :) BOZ (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Railroad Tycoon (#165) and Wing Commander (#166) - sad how underdeveloped the Wing Commander article is! BOZ (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured out a way to do this much faster, so I cleaned out the rest of 1991. :) I got Tunnels & Trolls (#167), Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (#168), The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I (#169), King's Quest V (#170), Eye of the Beholder (#171), Darkspyre (#172, started this one), Death Knights of Krynn (#173), Quest for Glory II: Trial by Fire (#174), Castles (#175), and Heart of China (#176). I'm satisfied with that – time for a break! :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Quicker indeed - I just finished what I wanted to do from 1992 in an hour! Got Might and Magic III: Isles of Terra (#177), Gateway to the Savage Frontier (#177), Pools of Darkness (#178), Conquests of the Longbow: The Legend of Robin Hood (#179), Castles: The Northern Campaign (#180), Block Out and Ishido (#181), Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed (#182), the masterpiece itself the original Civilization (#183), Out of This World (#184), no column for #185-186, A-Train (#187), and Aces of the Pacific (#188). Next time up, I will finish out the column with the whole of 1993! Maybe tomorrow!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I finished off 1993 in less than an hour. :) Got The Dagger of Amon Ra (#189), Darklands (#190), Might and Magic IV: Clouds of Xeen (#191), King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow (#192), Amazon: Guardians of Eden (#193), Conquered Kingdoms (#194, started this one), Night Trap (#195), and Challenge of the Five Realms (#196). Well, that finishes off my first pass at the run of the column! As I mentioned earlier, I will definitely be making a second pass, and hitting all the ancillary reviews that I skipped the first time around. There are quite a few, so bear with me! :) In fact, since I have some time tonight to do it, I may very well start within the hour! BOZ (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Second pass

Why not - having finished my first pass (getting, really, only a fraction of the reviews in this column), I might as well start off my promised second pass.  :) Should begin shortly, and end... before the end of 2009 hopefully? ;) BOZ (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I started Dragonfire II: The Dungeonmaster's Assistant. I admit that last time I skipped it because I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. It's not a game per se, but it is a computer program to assist in the management of other games, so make of that what you will. :) BOZ (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No new reviews tonight, but I added a bunch of blurbs from short notices I found in the magazine. There were quite a few such notices, but I only made use of ones which included some sort of commentary (at least a phrase or a sentence) outside of just describing what is in the game. One thing I did find was a table in #126, which finally gave star-ratings to most of the games reviewed up to that point (as well as Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer). Anyway, that was quite a bit of work for the night, so that's it for me! BOZ (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about #127 above; it did have one mini-review, for Earl Weaver Baseball. #128 had mini-reviews for S.D.I., Into the Eagle's Nest, and Delta Patrol, the last two of which do not have articles at this time. I may come back later and create stubs for them, but don't feel like it at this moment. :) BOZ (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) - (Update; created Into the Eagle's Nest, and realized that Delta Patrol was just a version of Delta. BOZ (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Issue #129 had mini-reviews for Pinball Wizard, GBA Championship Basketball. The Ancient Art of War at Sea, California Games, and The Eternal Dagger, so I added notes for each that has an article. Starting here in 1988, we see a lot more mini-reviews. Note that each column has a bunch of notes on publisher and games, and previously I had been adding bits to articles here and there... well, I just don't have the time and energy to keep up with that. I think from here on, I'll just stick with picking up the reviews I skipped on the first pass. Sorry. :) BOZ (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Added notes from the mini reviews the following, to those which have articles: Sanxion (#130), Mini-Putt, Alternate Reality: The City, Empire, Scrabble, Marble Madness, Street Sports Basketball, and Harrier Combat Simulator (all #131). There are a ton of mini-reviews in #132, so I will get to them most likely another time. :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC) - (Update; found Empire so didn't need to create that one, but I started a few other articles) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished #132, which had reviews for Pirates!, and yes a ton of mini-reviews: Hardball, Test Drive, Championship Baseball, On-Court Tennis, The Last Ninja, Wings of Fury, Earl Weaver Baseball (Amiga version), Skate or Die!, World Tour Golf, Winter Games, World Games, The Faery Tale Adventure, Superstar Soccer, Might and Magic (IBM version), Falcon, Soko-Ban, and Halls of Montezuma: A Battle History of the U.S. Marine Corps. BOZ (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a few more tonight: #133 - Dragon's Lair (C64 version), Skyfox II: The Cygnus Conflict, Indoor Sports, and Monte Carlo; #134 - Strike-Fleet, The Naval Task Force Simulator, and The Pawn; and #135 - Airborne Ranger, Power!, Decisive Battles of the American Civil War Volume 1: Bull Run to Chancellorsville, Tetris (IBM version), and TNK III. More later! BOZ (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I went back over the reviews I had skipped and started articles for anything which I couldn't find - got over a dozen new stubs created today! I'm beat.  :) Notice no more redlinks above? I'm going to create them as I go (or soon after) from now on. Also handled a few more tonight: #136 - Basketball Challenge and Fantasy Zone; and #137: Oids, Out Run, Ebonstar, and The Universal Military Simulator. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished up 1988 - making progress! Took care of the rest of the reviews from #138 - Questron II, The Bard's Tale III: Thief of Fate, Power At Sea, Shanghai, and Wooden Ships and Iron Men. #139 had no column, and I had skipped #140 entirely previously, which contained: F/A-18 Interceptor, Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer (MacIntosh version), Global Commander, Road Runner, Might and Magic (MacIntosh version), Penguin Land, and PT-109. Articles forthcoming in the near future for those which are lacking! BOZ (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Started 1989 with #141: Roadwars, Rockford, AAARGH!, Dive Bomber, Epyx VCR games (Play Action VCR California Games, Play Action VCR Golf, Play Action VCR Football, Head-On Baseball, Head-On Football), Moebius: The Orb of Celestial Harmony, Alien Syndrome, Solitaire Royale, Tetris (MacIntosh version). Going to create stubs for some of those, but probably not tonight - very tired! :) BOZ (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Got #142 today - this was a big 'un! Well, lots of little reviews, with many of them being MS-DOS versions of arcade games or of games previously reviewed in the column: Empire (MS-DOS version), Ikari Warriors, Karnov, Contra, Rush'n Attack, Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders, Battlehawks, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Version 2.0, PT-109 (MS-DOS version), Falcon (MS-DOS version), Final Assault, Star Saga One: Beyond the Boundary, Pharaoh's Revenge, Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna, and Shufflepuck Café. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Decided to get a little bit more in before retiring for the night. #143 had no additional reviews beyond the 3-page review for Pool of Radiance. #144 also had: Zany Golf, The Legend of Blacksilver, Battle Chess, Space Harrier 3-D, and Wonder Boy in Monster Land. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Two more: Gold Rush! (#145) and Hostage (#146). BOZ (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Got several more tonight; it looks like there have been fewer reviews per column lately - which is a good thing for me and my sanity! This time around, everything had it's own article already, and some had no citations until now: Abrams Battle Tank (#147), The Magic Candle (#148), Space Quest III (#149), and the following from issue #150: Axe of Rage, Hidden Agenda, Gauntlet, Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot, and Barbarian. More to come, but not tonight! BOZ (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Finishing up 1989! Got Thud Ridge and Strider from #151, and The Kristal, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure, and Beyond the Black Hole from #152. Getting into the 90s, probably over the weekend? BOZ (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Got Sword of Aragon and Space Rogue (#153), and David Wolf: Secret Agent, M1 Tank Platoon, and Star Fleet II: Krellan Commander (#154). BOZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Got TaskMaker, the Lynx game system, Knights of Legend, and Savage from #155, and Harpoon (PC/MS-DOS version), Populous: The Promised Lands, The Computer Edition of Risk: The World Conquest Game, Tiger Road, and Manhunter 2: San Francisco from #156. BOZ (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Did #157, which I had totally skipped last time around: Knights of Legend (PC/MS-DOS version), A Boy and His Blob, Day of the Viper, Dr. Plummet's House of Flux, Keef the Thief, Knight Force. Also finished up #158: Breach 2, War of the Lance, Time Bandit, Fire King, and Laser Squad; this column also reviewed the MEGA Pack of 10 games by Mastertronic, which contains Rebounder, Monty on the Run, Jack the Nipper II, Bulldog, Krakout, Future Knight, Cosmic Causeway, Trailblazer, Northstar, and THING Bounces Back. Note that of those, each game was reviewed in one sentence so I will not be creating an article for those four (Rebounder, Bulldog, Northstar, and THING) which do not already have one. The second half of 1990 looks like a cakewalk compared to the first half, so I hope to finish that this weekend! BOZ (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cakewalk it was - well, nearly so! Finished off the following - note that #162 had only one review and I got that one a long time ago. 159: Gunboat (PC/MS-DOS version), Iron Lord, Welltris, Nuclear War; 160: Drakkhen, Phantasy Star II; *161: Mechwarrior, Budokan; 163: Centurion: Defender of Rome, The Keys to Maramon, Dungeon Explorer, The Revenge of Shinobi; 164: MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy, Flood. I'll start 1991 probably this weekend, but probably not tonight. :) BOZ (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Did a few more this time all from #165, maybe no more for a few days: BrainBlasters (compilation of Xevious 2 and Bombuzal), Imperium, Starflight 2: Trade Routes of the Cloud Nebula, and Ishido: The Way of Stones. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And some more: Armor Alley, If It Moves, Shoot It!, King's Bounty, Tangled Tales: The Misadventures of a Wizard's Apprentice (#166); Battletech: The Crescent Hawks' Revenge, Hard Nova, and Stellar 7 (PC/MS-DOS version) (#167). BOZ (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I had plenty of free time, so I went berserk and finished off 1991! The following reviews are now in the can, as they say. 172: RoboSport, Warlords, Shadow Dancer, Y's Books I and II, Zombie Nation; 173: Space Quest IV, Zarlor Mercenary; 174: Cybergenic Ranger: Secret of the Seventh Planet, F29 Retaliator, Sonic the Hedgehog, Gunboat (Amiga), Harpoon (Amiga), Railroad Tycoon (MacIntosh), Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (MacIntosh); 175: Dragon Crystal, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, The Faery Tale Adventure (Sega Genesis), King's Bounty (Sega Genesis), Might and Magic (Sega Genesis); 176: J.B. Harold Murder Club, Phantasy Star III, A-10 Tank Killer (PC/MS-DOS version), Thexder (Macintosh & PC/MS-DOS versions), Space Quest III (Macintosh & PC/MS-DOS versions). BOZ (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really on a roll! (Happy Halloween, what's left of it, by the way). I'm done with 1992, and since 1993 was brief and I'll have a bunch of time on my hands, I'm going to attempt to get through the whole thing tomorrow and finally finish this enormous leg of my project! We'll see. :) Meanwhile, tonight I got to the following... 187: BattleToads, The Four Crystals of Trazere, King's Bounty (PC/MS-DOS), Super Space Invaders (Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss was already done); 188: Darkseed, Falcon 3.0, Minotaur, Prince of Persia, and Red Baron. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some big progress, but it turns out that I had far more ambition than free time or energy. :) On the bright side, I did get four out of the eight remaining issues done, so I should be able to finish up this second pass through "The Role of Computers" sometime within the next week! Today I got from 189: Global Conquest, Gods, Mission: Thunderbolt, Pacific Islands, Prophecy of the Shadow, Siege, Warrior of Rome II; 190: The Ancient Art of War in the Skies, Goblins, Shinobi (Sega Game Gear system), Alisia Dragoon, SpellCraft: Aspects of Valor; 191: Discovery: In the Steps of Columbus, Legend of Kyrandia, Ultima VII: The Black Gate and Forge of Virtue; 192: Battle Chess Enhanced CD ROM, Cobra Mission, Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest, Quest for Glory III: Wages of War, Shadowlands, Waxworks, and Wolfenstein 3-D. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a downer, but are these updates really needed here? It seems like they could be placed somewhere more specific than this talk page, as it is a LOT of extra text on an already very active talk page. --Torsodog^Talk 04:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Cross for TFA

Chrono Cross's 10th anniversary is coming up, and I've recently made sure the article's up to standard by trimming the plot and expanding the development section to reflect new translations. I'm in a very busy semester and don't have as much time as I'd like to babysit the TFA page and wait until the earliest request is pruned. If anyone's in the neighborhood of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and sees an opening (I'll be checking as much as I can), it'd be awesome if you could post the TFA blurb I've primed at User:Zeality.

I'm expecting a huge fight. The last time I tried a decennial TFA (Chrono Trigger, arguably a better article because more development history materials have been translated), it was bitterly opposed by other Wikipedians prejudiced against VG articles, and Raul ultimately had to move it a month forward to placate their bile. I'll probably be back here to rally some support. If it's like it was in early 2008, then they really hate video game articles over there. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to make sure you fill in your request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending as a starting point. Unfortunately, I see there's two other VG articles already proposed for November. You're at 5 pts with it not accounting for timing of other VG articles (FA 2 years+, 10yr anniv., and first TFA), and presently no VG has been posted within a month. This would likely beat the other 2/3 VG articles on that list. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take away a potential argument against, you should take a look at the references and see how clean you can get them. I see refs with multiple external links (the only link should be to the reference itself, to avoid confusion); a couple of refs without a publisher listed; confusing refs, such as a GamePro ref that links to gamepro.org and states GamePro as the publisher, but then has a second external link to Chrono Compendium; some names are given as John Doe, others as Doe, John. It looks like this article was made FA over three years ago with no formal review since then. Our reference reliability standards have significantly increased since then, and I'm not sure that all of the current sources would pass the test today. Pagrashtak 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll get on it. I'll try to beat those other two noms to the list, since I'm hesitant to make flagrant enemies out of their nominators by replacing theirs (instead of pre-empting them). ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the TFA request is live on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Modification of "Video games notable for negative reception"'s inclusion criteria

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception - The list has grown unruly due to the inclusion of video games based on low reviews only, forgetting the spirit of what games are actually "notable" for their negative reception. We could use some further input on this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That list is just a shit article, nothing can be done to save it. Originally, the article was at List of video games considered the worst ever which had a clear criteria for inclusion, it moved to this wishy-washy "notable for negative reception", and has been in a hole ever since. This 2007 AFD shows reasoning for moving the article back to worst ever. Here are my comments from 2007 regarding why the list is unmaintainable - Talk:Video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_2#The_renaming_has_gone_all_horrible.

The reason why the article was moved from "worst ever", is that there are always users wanting to put in their own pet hates. If you see my 2007 comments, you'll see that I had to argue for the removal of Devil May Cry 2 and Fable (video game). Look at it now, it includes Game Party, the seventh worst reviewed Wii game on Metacritic! Wow! - hahnchen 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree in spirit (if not intensity) with Hahnchen. The problem is deciding what makes something notable in that context. "Worst ever" is a clear benchmark that can be consistently applied. As it stands the list is a bunch of cherrypicked and subjective quote mixes from reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In my removal of a bunch of games, Game Party was kept because from my experience, it's one of the games blamed for the casual games flood. It's not the worst game ever, but it is SO a game with a ton of negative reception, more so than most games on the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David, that's not a problem really. As I mentioned in the discussion there, games in the list should have references demonstrating notoriety in the industry for being a bad game. Ala E.T. for example. This precludes simply having bad reviews. "Worst ever" is much more subjective and denotes some sort of possible ranking for "worst ever". The current article title is good as it is, it just needs to be followed. I.E. games *notable* for negative reception, not games that recieved negative reception. That's the very reason I called attention to this over there in the first place. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think "worst ever" is more subjective, you're doing it wrong. Allow only games which have been described by reliable sources as the worst game of all time. I've looked further through the talk page archives, and here are some other discussions - New Format, Call for Consensus, and Requested Move. I think the failed Requested Move was when I decided to abandon any hope of salvaging the article, having a short clearly defined list clearly offended many of the editors (with some suggesting that the short list aught to be deleted), and the talk page quickly descends into whether or not The Golden Compass is bad enough. - hahnchen 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we'd need to find an arbitrary criteria for what "enough" examples of people calling it the worst ever. If we enforce a criteria where editors have to establish that a game is notable for its negative reception, it'll be fine. With Game Party, you seem to think that the massive negative reception it raked in due to its nature and the stigma it carries as one of the first of its kind, the "casual game that is ruining the industry". Only the Imagine games, Petz games, and Wii Sports/Play/Fit/Music have even remotely similar reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahnchen, that's not much of an argument and I can easily pose the same thing back to you - if you think it isn't more subjective, you're doing it wrong. "Worst ever" is much more subjective - both in wording and context - than "notably bad reception". And your criteria is no different then the critera we're already stated, i.e. "Allow only games which have been described by reliable sources as notably bad reception in the industry", sans "worst". You've actually presented support *for* what we're talking about, not against it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source describes a game as "worst ever", then it should go in. There should be no discussion needed, I don't see how you've managed to cram in subjectivity on our behalf. On the other hand, you have absolutely no criteria for what is deemed "notably bad", and how that is different to "bad". The whole conversation here has been triggered by people having no idea what the list is about because it is so badly defined. If you seriously believe that this is an argument for what you are pushing, you have clearly misunderstood it. - hahnchen 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I love how your criteria is the exact opposite of the recipe for a 200kb article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you've clearly missunderstood. You're not saying anything different than is being said by us, same exact thing, same exact critera sans "worst". And you can throw assumptions about people all you like - I'm *telling you* how the conversation started and why, and what the purpose is. Simply responding back with statements equivalent to "Well if you think this way you're a doo-doo-head" and regurgitating the same critera we stated as well, doesn't really lend much credence. References of "worst games ever" are usually lists of games by an author based on their opinion - the very definition of subjectivity. That's easily seen as well by the fact they games on the lists vary per author. Games that recieved universal notability in the industry for being piss poor, i.e. a rep - is not subjective. There is a common ground however, as some "worst games" authors try and augment their material with industry related reception material such as this. So nobody is stating you can't use worst games articles as references in the current scheme - which is the very reason we're trying to spell it out for people. However, there's a *reason* why the article gained notoriety when it was called "Worst games ever", and why the second afd (in contrast to the first one you pointed to) set the renaming to this. You can strongly disagree with the reasoniong, and tell people they "just don't get it" because they don't agree with you, but that doesn't make it fact, nor does it make it a more authoritative position. We're looking for common ground and substance here not "You have a differen't opinoin, so you don't get it." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Yes, of course the list is going to be comprised of references to subjective pieces, that was never the issue, and given a list of this nature, was blatantly obvious. What makes the "worst ever" criteria workable, is that our editorial standards are clearly defined, and objective - did a reliable source decry the game as worst ever? This is in great contrast to your undefined "reputation" argument, you have not clarified the difference between "notably bad" and "bad", the whole discussion here is because there are no defined standards for that list. On the talk page, you have editors arguing for the inclusion of Wii Music and Wind Waker. This is no different to the dire straits the article was in in 2007, my 2007 comments are as relevant now as they were then.

You link to a ephemeral Kotaku link from 2006 to cite the list's notoriety. Not only is that trivial, but it's also from a time when the list was entirely unsourced, and editorial standards were not applied. Was Dangerous Vaults described as the worst ever game by any reliable source? The second AFD said nothing new, the article's naming wasn't discussed at all. The participants seemed to believe that there was some clearly defined criteria for the list. The existence of the discussion proves otherwise. - hahnchen 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not joking any more than you seem to be with the humorous pseudo analysis satements. You've just admitted the lists are subective and then make *the same criteria statemens we proposed* while stating "undefined reputation". Once again, simply having a statement at a reliable source stating the game is terrible is not enough to make it "notable" for being terrible. It must include why it's viewed widely as being notable for being terrible, which has been said over and over again in contrast to your ridiculous "you have not clarified the difference" statement. Games get bad reviews every day, references must demonstrate why this game is notable for it's bad review - per the article title. And on the contrary, the Kotaku article shows public coverage and opinion on the need to define notability. As does the second AFD, where you incorrectly state "nothing new" when the entire AFD is full of affirmations on the need for demonstrating notability for being bad including a statement in relation to the title with regards to a keep vote and another suggestion for changing to "noted" (which isn't a bad idea). While you may be under the assumption the participants were missguided in their belief, others do not. Once again, coming from the assumption that those who do not agree with you "are mistaken" or "missunderstanding" does little to enhance a position. Likewise that's flawed logic that because the AFD exists it shows it's undefined - all it shows is a single person (the proposer) didn't understand it, while the unanimous AFD vote of "keep" felt it was defined at the time. Once again, becuase you don't agree with their logic does not make your position have any more weight - which seems to be a common problem with your viewpoint here. We have editorial standards, not "objective standards" - that's what consensus is for. Once again, we're trying to gain a common ground and establish a consensus agreeable to as many people on the project as possible. Either you want to find common ground and actually read and understand said common ground, or you want to keep going around in circles making statements about what you think people are thinking and saying. I'm more interested in the first rather than the latter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"You've just admitted the lists are subjective" - you cite that argument like it's an admittance of failure. It's just that at no point did I ever suggest that opinion pieces, the reliable sources an article is based on, were objective. I have no idea why you chose to argue such a ridiculous angle. Opinion pieces are by definition subjective, what was the last objective review your read?

I've been very clear on this since the beginning. You can not define the difference between "notably bad" and "bad". Whereas you can clearly define games that have been considered worst. The AFD you point to does not consider the alternative as suggested here, the participants do not discuss whether or not there is a defined criteria for inclusion, but then - AFD isn't exactly the right forum for discussion. And your Kotaku crutch shows nothing but that one of the editors thought the article was worth 5 minutes of your time, that its unsourced ventings on Dangerous Vaults were pretty funny. At any point here, does anyone suggest we revert back to that?

In the end, it boils down to the fact that you don't have editorial standards. If you're still trying to define your standards years later, it probably isn't the right way to go. - hahnchen 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Page could stand a move just to get away from the utterly loaded term, "notable". Compare List of films considered the worst. Nifboy (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, that's exactly what I proposed - using various categories of bad video games. Though, I guess it still focuses on bad films rather than video games notable for negative reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Worst ever" is a moving target. As new games come out, someone rates a new game as the "worst ever" and therefore the target is constantly moving if we use that specific term. Indeed, if you really get down to it, there could only be 1 "worst ever" game by what the context of "ever" means.

This is not an endorsement of the current name or list contents as the list appears to be cherry-picked names. FE: Several items list "10 worst games" and yet not all 10 are on the list.陣内_Jinnai 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were my problems with "worst ever" as mentioned above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there can be more than one "worst ever" game. We can accept a plurality of opinion. When games progress, they usually get better - so "worst ever" is fairly static. Regardless, a clear objective criteria such as "worst ever" would cut the list down, and allow for every entry to be clearly sourced. Compare this with editors arguing over how a game is "notably bad" versus "bad". - hahnchen 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It escapes me as to how the phrase "worst game ever", which is used so flagrantly by reliable sources alike, will reduce it better than objective discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not used flagrantly at all, not by anything approaching a reliable source anyway. Whereas currently, people are arguing for the inclusion of Wind Waker, which would pretty much justify the inclusion of any game, ever. - hahnchen 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a list, under any name, could be created without cherry-picking entries or, essentially, crafting arbitrary criteria such that the result is the same. If nothing else, we have to separate Comic Book Guy-esque hyperbole from, I guess, "genuine" loathing, and most publications tend not to dwell on bad games very long. Nifboy (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hanchen. The problem with the current format is that the subjectivity must be dealt with by Wikipedia editors i.e. Wikipedia editors determine whether or not a game is "notable" for a negative reception. For this reason the article is essentially original research. The only way for it to be in keeping with the policy of "notability" is to include any game with more than one negative review, which is obviously ludicrous. bridies (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At what point does "having a negative review" turn into "being notable"? That's absolutely not the point held by anyone supporting the current name, and if anything, closer to the side supporting the name change. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if this is directed at my comment but per Wikipedia guidelines "notability" rests on coverage in multiple secondary sources. So if "notable for negative reception" means anything at all, it must be multiple (i.e. 2 or more) sources demonstrating negative reception, negative reviews being an obvious example. bridies (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nifboy pointed out "List of films considered the worst" as an example. As has previously been argued, a list's title should clearly define what is included therein. "List of songs in Rock Band" will naturally include all on-disc Rock Band songs; "List of Nintendo 64 games" will include all games released for the Nintendo 64.

"Video games notable for negative reception" is not so clearly defined. The title suggests, firstly, that the games listed are only notable for their negative reception; this is simply the result of poor wording. More critically, the title is wholly up to interpretation, which leads to unnecessary amounts of Talk page deliberation. "Notable" is a word constantly in flux throughout Wikipedia, even within policy articles. And "negative reception"? Does that mean "below 60 percent" on GameRankings or Metacritic? Does it means "below 40 percent"? Does it mean that one or more sources gave it their lowest possible score, even though another might have awarded it Game of the Year?

Consider how the title "List of films considered the worst" defines the article. It states that subject must be considered the worst, and since this is Wikipedia, it must be so considered by reliable sources. Therefore, a subject can only be included if a large number of reliable sources consider it the "worst". Films considered the worst is a fairly lean list, and it backs up its claims with over 100 reliable references, which suggests that the approach is working. Why not steal their idea for our article, and move "List of video games notable for negative reception" to "List of video games considered the worst"? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also support such a move. bridies (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I would support such a move. I don't have the time to drive it forward right now, but I would back any attempts to do so. - hahnchen 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, that title isn't any better, and if you look on the talk page, you'll see there's consensus to do the exact opposite and move the film article instead. "Considered the worst" is inherently biased and unencyclopedic.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I say delete the whole list. Any attempt by us Wikipedians to set a standard for "notable for negative commentary" (should be notorious btw) or "condiered (among) the worst" could easily be slapped with no original research violations and neutral point of view violations.陣内_Jinnai 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN reaching critical mass

We've got over twenty articles currently up there, all waiting for a reviewer.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not the best of the writers so my ability to review is limited. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help out... I'll be away for a few days, but might have time after that. Just depends on Real Life™. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Using my free time on the GAR Sweeps.陣内_Jinnai 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What Jinnai said. And working on Dragon Quest and F-Zero. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take ToeJam & Earl III. As a side note, the reference quality of Saints Row 2 is not up to par; more than half of them need to be removed. Since the time required to redo that many references would easily exceed the 7 day GAN review allotment, the article could reasonably be quick-failed. Mercilessly tearing down the articles of others is not my forte, so I won't volunteer for the dirty work on that one. I just thought I'd point it out, since reducing the backlog is the #1 priority. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura and Blood Bowl (2009 video game) are missing reception sections. Salavat (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

...Yet neither are up for GAN Salavat, unless I'm missing something.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They are actually, according to their talk pages. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

and the GAN page Salavat (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going through a stack of magazine for Lara Croft (KFM- I have a small number of sources for Ivy (Soulcalibur) too), but I'll see if I can review an article this week. Free time has been very sparse though. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Don't forget the music VG GANs... Music of the SaGa series has been sitting there for 2 1/2 months; I'd really appreciate it if anyone would take a look at it. --PresN 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the concept of Good Article reviews doesn't make sense. I'd rather that there be simply a strict FAR guideline and users can use the rest of the time to actually improve articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty if that happened we'd get less done than we are now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaborating on the Collaboration of the Week?

Anyone interested in cleaning up Command & Conquer (video game), since it's this week's collaboration? Nothing serious; just some work to make it more respectable, orderly and guideline-following. It's in poor shape, currently, so every little bit would help. Count me in. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of CotWs I would like to work on, like Joust (video game), Zaxxon, and Super Mario World. Sadly though, I never have the time to dedicate even minor work on them. :-\ It's a shame, because as you point out, most are in very bad shape. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

I'll try and jump in and help out best I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I can'd do some games such as Super Mario World; it's less fun to write about something you know. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Video Game Consoles

Hello,

Can anyone tell me where the organisation of video game console with generations comes from ? The only direct reference I've found is the following : [1]. Since no article on Wp is dedicated to the author, Michael Miller, it seems to me too sketchy to be the only ref... Zandra^[Moa ?] 09:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.16.161.237 (talk)

I would like to know this as well. I always thought Wikipedia was over-emphasizing this classification, dealing with it as if it were a widespread classification even though it doesn't seem to be used much in the gaming world. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its a general industry term, but i think it over-emphasizes it with modern consoles which are considered more of specialized computers due to technology convergence.陣内_Jinnai 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for giving your opinion. Zandra^[Moa ?] 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.16.161.237 (talk)

Half-Life 2: Episode Three (video game)

If someone has time, please take a look at Half-Life 2: Episode Three (video game) and see if it's worth merging into Half-Life 2: Episode Three to recreate the article. Otherwise, just redirect it again or merge it somewhere. Gary King (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. It consisted of wasn't properly sourced material anyway, and was inferior to the at least sourced version that was merged at Half-Life 2: Episode Three. Given that (as far as I'm aware) no new information on Episode Three has emerged since the merge discussion—or at least substantive enough information to justify a spin-out at this point—there's no reason to change the status quo yet. -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Using VGChartz as a sales figure source - should we?

I recently had to delete a portion of sales figures from the Wolfenstein article, citing it as not a reliable source for accurate sales figures, only for it to reappear and have me remove them once more. With the popularity of this website being cited by many amateur gaming websites (and the gamers at large), I'm starting to think we should blacklist the site from being used as a source for any accurate sales figures.

To support my claim, this article at Gamasutra should help: [2]

Personally, the only sites that should be used as an accurate source is NPD, Media Create and whatever Europe uses. Am I the only one agreeing with this? TonicBH (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We already list VGChartz as questionable for sales sources per WP:VG/S. It definitely should be removed for any recent games where we know its being tracked by NPD, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. Agree that VGChartz really ought not be used as a rule. –xeno^talk 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right to remove. Also beware of added reliable sources that cite VG Chartz as well (bad journalism happens.) NPD/similar numbers and what publishers release (assuming it sold well) are really the only good figures we can use. I believe the gamasutra article is already used as evidence in the WP:VG/S page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 35#Video Game sales charts & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#VGChartz re-visited. JACOPLANE • 2009-10-27 16:03

Media listing in infobox/digital distribution listings

Note: Reposted from Portal talk:Video games to get more responses. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Are there guidelines for media listings in infoboxes? Most games have CD/DVD/Bluray, and that's fine, but when people put "Steam" as a media, it doesn't work (especially when a game is available from multiple services), and some articles have "Download" while I would think "Digital Distribution" might work better. Maybe some guidelines when dealing with digital distribution of titles under the media section, as well as when adding comments about digital distribution to games. Do games need a comment saying "released on Steam" or the like? Should DD release dates be listed in the infobox? (GTA 4 Lost and Damned has this, but there was a significant delay between DD and boxed). Lonyo (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the likes of Steam being mentioned as a media format, "Download" would make a lot more sense to casual readers who do not know what Steam is. If it is important that the game was available from Steam, e.g. if it was exclusive to the service, then this can be mentioned in the article, provided it is cited properly. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Steam isn't appropriate. That's like instead of saying DVD-DL for Xenosaga I you say Playsation 2 disc. Steam is a program. Specifically Digital Distribution. This is not quite the same as downloading. FE, I can download content from my external HD to my CD without ever connecting to the internet. Therefore until we get something better, ie Digital Distribution software to distinguish Steam from a direct link.陣内_Jinnai 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Feminist video games

I just noticed GVnayR (talk · contribs) tagging Street Fighter II with this category. Turns out he/she just created the category today, with the definition of "Video games that feature strong female characters that don't require male assistance to get around." I think this is category is unnecessary - is it really important to categorize games that have strong female characters? I'd like some input on this. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one find it totally unnecessary and any game's inclusion would be totally debatable based on how "independent" a woman is, and their role in the videogame as to whether a certain character makes the whole game feminist. --uKER (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well considering a BARBIE game was put in it...yeah, nuke away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But what about Ken? Where is he in those games? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Original research. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a non-neutral category if ever I saw one. There's a big difference between a game with strong female characters and a game that puts forward feminist ideas. Kill it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I add my support. It doesn't make much sense, especially with the games on the list. I'd hardly call Barbie "strong" or "feminist." --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a unnecessary category, and the inclusion criteria are based on opinion rather than any verifiable factual stuff. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on confirming IGN as a reliable source

A user is questioning whether IGN is reliable or merely a promotional source in nature. Anyone with a better idea of IGN's internal organization may want to comment here on WP:RS/N. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, if we lost IGN as a "reliable source" in the eyes of Wikipedia we'd be screwed across the board.

What bugs me even more is Gavin's arguing the reliability of an opinion on a website with an editorial process that's clearly established, and statements that could only be used for reception. Does anyone else feel that the whole basis is, no offense, stupid? How is their opinion any weaker than someone that writes for the New York Times or appears on the BBC News?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a silly argument and it has nothing to do with reliable sources but whether the IGN award carries enough importance to be included. That's another question altogether. –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. How would IGN not be a reliable source for... IGN's own award? The original posters argument makes almost no sense. --Torsodog^Talk 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Its just one extremist deletionist causing unnecessary and unproductive trouble. IGN's been long-standing as a reliable source across Wikipedia media articles in general; its not limited to merely games. I wouldn't put any real credence in that changing. Though I can't believe people are still bickering endlessly over WP:FICT... their time would be far better spent actually writing articles as opposed to complaining over wording on a non-functional guideline. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously - that and Gavin's argumemts are the main reason I avoid WP:FICT like the plague. :) As has been said above, I wouldn't worry overmuch about his arguments here either - nor waste my time trying to convince him of anything. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As a former IGN/Gamespy employee and current volunteer at one of their sites (Classicgaming), with the exception of user blogs and the such, all the content on regular sites goes through an editorial process. Usually multi-tiered depending on the size of the site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dino Crisis soundtracks

I have noticed on the articles for all three Dino Crisis games the a detailed tracklisting is given for the soundtrack CDs for each game. Is this really suitable for the articles? If the soundtrack albums have got enough notability then they could have their own articles but I don't think this kind of detail belongs on the page for the individual game. Mention of a soundtrack CD can be put into the article, perhaps under a section about Development, but only if this can be properly referenced. Currnetly there is no referencing for the CDs at all on any of the three articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kid Icarus (series)

I noticed this was proposed to be merged, but didn't see a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. How about we discuss this now? Personally I don't see a huge need for a series page when he has had 2 games, and an apppearance in Brawl. Most of the series article is focused on his Brawl appearance, which is just recentism at it's finest. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information in the section about Pit looks like original research to me as well as there are no references, especially about the mythology points. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Space Gun manuals

Does anybody have access to the instruction manuals for the Amiga, Atari ST and/or Sega Master System versions of Space Gun? I would be interested to know if any of them contain plot, character, enemy or locations details that I could use to expand the article. I have used the ZX Spectrum version that is hosted online but it does not go into too much detail. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Movie Battles GA?

Mmh, not to single out this article or something but, how comes it's a GA? o_O It's really surprising. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a GA from 2007; I'm presuming GA sweeps haven't got to it yet, in current state, it needs delisting. Its clearly not GA material now, what with only four proper secondary sources, one of which is not considered reliable (ModDB), and primarily drawing on forum posts as sources. -- Sabre (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was once a GA, why don't we wipe out everything from beyond the point it got it and re-add all relevant information in that keeps it GA? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Back when it was promoted, it only had two acceptable sources but is pretty much the same otherwise. -- Sabre (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then who was stoned when they promoted it or were rules really lax back then? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone give it a GAR already? I mean, I do it all the time to time that are or aren't on the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment GamerPro64 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Requirements dispute

I'd like a third-party view on the requirements field over at Half-Life: Opposing Force. I've got a new guy changing the system requirements to some lower ones (not to mention putting them in such a way to make the infobox look a lot less healthy and organised), claiming that the minimum system requirements given by the developers on the game's page on Steam are innaccurate. He instead cites Planet Half-Life, a fansite that's loosely associated with GameSpy. I would go with what the developers say on an official site to what is said on any fansite, regardless of its affiliation with a usually reliable source, but this guy begs to differ. He's also done the same with Half-Life (video game), changing the requirements to something different than given by the developers, though I've not reverted over there. We're both at the limits of WP:3RR on OpFor here, further reverts by either of us on that particular article aren't advisable. -- Sabre (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickly looking at the situation, I'm pretty sure I would go with the developer's stated requirements over any others. --Torsodog^Talk 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): I'll add my three reverts to your side if needed (just used up one). As you say, Valve or the back of the box are the most reliable. Especially since, as PC Gamer UK, pointed out, the minimum requirements of most games are wrong anyway, so lowering them is highly suspicious to me anyway. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Those Steam requirements are different to my box copies from 1999. Common sense should be used when using reliable sources, Windows 2000 or XP wasn't even released when Half-Life and Opposing Forces came out. --Mika1h (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but they'd get updated to show that they still work with modern operating systems. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 2000/XP stuff is the stuff being reverted by us. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mika1h, what are the requirements on the back of the box you have? I looked up a few versions of the OpFor box online, but none of them had requirements on the back. -- Sabre (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From the top: Half-Life (Game of the Year edition), Opposing Force, Blue Shift: [3]

Stick with those or Steam. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say that the Steam ones are still the better ones to go for, especially since Steam is the primary means of distribution for Valve games now. Since they're lower, the core system requirements on the box aren't appropriate for the Steam version, but a computer with the core requirements as listed on Steam would run both versions. -- Sabre (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I second Sabre. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it, stubbornly reverting away. As I'm an involved party its not appropriate for me to use admin powers here to protect the page or what-not but this really is going too far. -- Sabre (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've linked him here in case he really hasn't noticed, but I don't expect anything to come of it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames paid Wikipedia?

Why is mobygames so special it's allowed to be on so many game articles?

WP:VG/EL says MobyGames can be added but 1up, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy can't. Can somebody explain to me what is so special about it?--Lorson (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I raised this same query here. Does this help? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moby Games's purpose is to catalog games in a neutral manner in the same way IMDB indexes movies; the other sites lists are companies that provide editorial content on games, meaning that they are not neutral. Furthermore, there are many sites like IGN, etc. that if we were to allow them like ELs, we'd effectively have to include the vast body of other gaming websites that we consider reliable. This just unnecessarily expands the body of links there. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't use IMDB on every movie page (or as far as I can see, anyway). So what's the difference between a page that needs it and a page that doesn't? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames has their own user reviews, that's not neutral. And gamefaqs doesn't have editorials on any specific games. So why is it special?--Lorson (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs, I think is not generally allowed because... I forgot. Sorry. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a reason, I propose to continue adding gamefaqs external links to every page that has moby links on them. Otherwise all mobygame links should be removed. But I won't start doing either until everyone is happy.--Lorson (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For a redlinked user, you're surprisingly awesome. :P I know there's a reason for GameFAQs, but I'm getting sleepy, so I can't remember what I was told, sorry. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

check page history to find out--Lorson (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed loads of times already, check the archives. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-1 00:08

Per Wikipedia:External links, "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

In short, the link should provide extra content beyond what a normal Wikipedia article provides. Mobygames typically provide staff credits and extra screenshots. However, this is not a free pass for all Mobygames pages. If the page does not provide anything extra, then there's no reason to include the link.

For example, Q*bert does not have a Mobygames link because the all the screenshots are basically the same and most of the staff is mentioned in the bulk of the article. Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle on the other hand does include a Moby link. But the page offers a full listing of the game credits and many screenshots. All which are absent from the Wikipedia article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Why would credits be copyrighted? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not, but usually for most modern games, the credits are 100-peoeple strong. You don't add credit in the game in this case, only the key people, and can let Moby take care of the rest. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Sorry, got confused. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Echo what Guyinblack25 said. Not all MobyGames articles merit links from our articles, just ones with more information than our article includes. Credits aren't copyrighted, but we don't include very many screenshots for most games. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Credits and screenshots from mobygames and other games sites should be copied to the Wikipedia article (you can't copyright them) and cited when other better sources can't be used, which makes having these types of external links completely redundant. And I have read the archives which shows owners of the site have spammed Wikipedia a lot, and people are still doing it. So we can either have the site be spammed endlessly with no limit, or ban it from the external links section, a long with all other links of this nature.--Lorson (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

alexa.com says that 20% of their traffic is from wikipedia, and 19% from google. This is proof they have done an absolutely amazing job spamming Wikipedia.--Lorson (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Alexa, let alone seen a link on Wikipedia to it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that MobyGames rarely has enough content to justify linking to it. Nifboy (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Thejadefalcon: Alexa Internet. He is saying that according to Alexa, 20% of mobygames' traffic... Also, I've always wondered why so many articles link to mobygames. I don't really see the need, and I don't have links to it in the two FA video game articles I have authored. --Torsodog^Talk 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't use them either. But I can see the argument for using. I do admit that they are overused on Wikipedia though, and the half our articles probably don't need them.

Lorson- Unfortunately, WP:NFCC limits the number of screenshots we can use in a single article. Because most games are copyrighted, their screenshots are copyrighted also. This makes them "non-free media", which requires a "fair use rationale" to be used on Wikipedia. Each screenshot must significantly increase the reader's level of understanding about the topic. Typically, this amounts to about one or two such images included in our articles. Many Mobygames pages have far more screenshots than we could ever insert.

That being said, enforcement on our project's external links policy is a bit lax. Reevaluating and tightening them up some certainly wouldn't hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

That's good, because the link I gave earlier has me wiping out a user's entire edit history, which made me feel bad. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If its credits and screenshots you're after with Mobygames, then Allgame does much the same, with the added bonus of not being user-generated, having an editorial process and being considered a reliable source. Just throwing it out there, but I'm with Nifboy on this one, most of the time it doesn't have enough content to be worth linking to. The existence of a template to make these links easy probably only encourages people to add the links without actual consideration to their value. -- Sabre (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC

I suppose it would be a good idea to come up with a general guideline somewhere that reads linking MobyGames is probably a bad idea. It just doesn't add a lot, and even if it would, we are very, very strict with linking things like fansites or IGN pages. For the type of stuff it offers, I can't see why it would warrant an exemption from that strictness. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well right now the page is listed under "acceptable external links" on WP:VG/EL with the exact phrasing, "*If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis." I have yet to see a Mobygames page that actually met this description. Nifboy (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames has an editorial process as well. They don't just take submissions without review. For instance, they frequently require sources when updating things like game platforms, reviews (published, not user), credits and so forth. SharkD (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now suggested downgrading MobyGames from "appropriate" to "inappropriate" over on WP:VG/EL. Nifboy (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

...Aaand done. If you're feeling bold, go ahead and start kicking out bad links. Nifboy (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to wait a little while longer before making that change. SharkD (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was a bold change. Nifboy (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and consensus building, with regards to changes of policy and guidelines, is never a bold process. That being bold page has more to do with encouraging everyone to be part of the editing and contribution process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt this discussion was consensus enough that MobyGames needs to be linked to less, and our guidelines should reflect that. I'm too paranoid thanks to good suggestions going "inactive" and/or archived after a week. Nifboy (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal

Well there seems to be an agreement that mobygame links are only appropriate in a few rare cases, and they should all be removed because

1. MobyGames only provides screenshots of a few older games that other competing sites do not. There is nothing else unique about the website, in that it has nothing that other competing websites do not provide.
2. The website has been spammed over a very long period of time by owners of the site, making most of their traffic come from here according to alexa.com. Which means most of the links were added by spammers without a second thought, and not because they are a unique source of information.

Where it can be used:

1. MobyGames can be used as a last resort as a source for credits and other game data. For example it would be better to use World of Spectrum, as a source for spectrum games instead of mobygames. Any other information can that is only available on mobygames can be used as source. By doing this, there is no need for it to be in the external link section too.
2. If screenshots are copied from mobygames, it should be noted only on the image description page.
3. Box art from MobyGames should not be used as they all have very large invasive watermarks. (I already found about 40 and added watermark template to them)

I think we should remove them from ALL external link sections of ALL articles as owners of the site have been spamming Wikipedia for years with it so about 99% of them are likely to be inappropriate anyway. Using the external link finder, I found the mobygames.com link spread across 6599 different articles (im guessing most are in the external link sections), so we will need a robot editor to delete them all.--Lorson (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it's the owners of the site that are spamming it? There are people who go around checking this sort of thing, you know. Assume Good Faith. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This fact was established back in 2007, exact edit is here. And discussion about it is here.--Lorson (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. However, that was two years ago and I've never seen Flipkin. What's likely happened is that some people have seen the templates and added them to pages which don't have them, therefore chaining the effect. Besides, you appear to be in the wrong place now anyway. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So? That is just a side-effect from all the mass spamming that has previously taken place. And the fact you've never seen these editors again is because they use multiple accounts to spam it as shown in the discussion in 2007.--Lorson (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have any diffs or concerns about sock puppets, take it to the relevant authorities. Socks have nothing to do with what we're discussing. Anything can be spammed, regardless of what it's meant to be used for. Concerns that it's the owner of the site spamming it have no merit in this discussion. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you aren't showing how it is unique from using other game websites.--Lorson (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... look up, read what others have said? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I've just summed it up.--Lorson (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Others have not summed up a complete removal of it from every page as you are pushing for. And frankly I'm having a problem with this attempt to railroad this through on the project by a new user who themeselves was spamming useless links to GamFaqs. It smacks of agenda and conflict of interest. Consensus above, as Thejadefalcon was referring to, is for removal of external links from pages where a link to Moby does not add anything. That is done on an individual article by article basis. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You said it more diplomatically than my sleep-deprived mind could. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added them for the same reason mobygame links were added, but people were reverting some of my edits. So Wikipedia allows users to spam its website freely with over 6000 links, then check if they are all suitable afterwards? Then I assume you won't mind if I put gamefaqs links in over 6000 articles then?--Lorson (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we won't mind in the slightest. You will, though, when you're banhammered. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all helpful.--Lorson (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither was your grandstanding on spamming 6000 links or your continued posturing in lieu of actual further discusion by members of the project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out how that would get you blocked. That would class as helpful information to me. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would the 6000 (or how ever many I can add before I get blocked) gamefaqs.com links I added be reverted?--Lorson (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, IMO. Mass spamming of gamefaq links and mass delinking of mobygames links don't seem to be the best of solutions to any problem, considering the case-by-case nature of these external links. --Torsodog^Talk 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames links were not added on a case-by-case but spammed by the website owners. But editors above have suggested they be removed on a case-by-case basis. Makes Wikipedia sound link a free advertising website to me. Where is the page that says "Stick links to your website on every page you can, and we'll sort through it all afterwards"?--Lorson (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually read this this time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Given your objection to the mass spamming of mobygames links, your spamming of gamefaq links to articles seemingly indiscriminately is a bit odd... Two wrongs do not make a right. --Torsodog^Talk 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither do three wrongs, if you're curious. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Battletoads

In case you haven't been following my enormous Dragon magazine thread above, I've been adding blurbs on reviews to just about every retro game the magazine reviewed in its "The Role of Computers" column - and we're talking a whole lot of games, and I'm about 30 game away from being done. :) Now, for the most part, I've received a warm reception for this, with a thanks and requests for more and a barnstar or two. But after adding a note on Battletoads, I was reverted as in one person's opinion this contribution to the article was "non-notable". What do you all say? Have I just wasted many hours of my time on something that should have been considered non-notable from the start? Consider just how many of these articles have existed - for years in some cases - with not a single citation to a source, and now I have added one (a large percentage of them). Let me know if I should even bother finishing this project off! BOZ (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was me. I did it because I for one never in my life heard about such magazine. Also, you seemed to find necessary to mention in the articles the names of "Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser" which I also can't find a reason for, so the whole thing seemed to me like someone wanting to get their friends' names on the article. Maybe I am wrong, but let's see what people say. About you comparing it to cracked.com, at least cracked.com is mentioned as a source for the claim of the game being among one of the most irritatingly hard games ever. --uKER (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally never heard of both Dragon and Cracked XD Jokes aside, I should think BOZ was correct on citing the name of the authors of the column, it's usual practice in citing references, yeah? To be fair, maybe cracked.com's claim on the game being "among one of the most irritatingly hard games ever" should also be cited properly; I see none over the article. — Blue。 15:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All it takes is to follow the link in the prose to Dragon (magazine), and ye shall be rewarded with newfound knowledge. I've also linked it in the ref to make sure you can't miss it. Nifboy (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would surmise that a long running magazine would be a lot more notable than a joke website, so it seems like a good idea to keep adding the citations. And you're supposed to mention the author who had the opinion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even realize Cracked even counted as a reliable source until now (though they did have a magazine of their own at one time).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)