Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A Class Guidelines

Suggestions

Infobox -- |name= should also be filled :) |publisher= may be the same as |developer=, in which case it doesn't need to be filled. Should official/available |ratings= and |requirements= be mandatory? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some games (like downloadable titles) may not have ratings, and requirements may not be necessary for ones that run on consoles. I've also seen when PC games put the requirements in the body, and not in the table. Ergo: these can't be required. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought "required" means "required if available" as in you cannot leave these out. I forgot requirements are put in that special box. :) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cover art or an equivalent (title screen, gameplay screen, picture of an arcade cabinet, etc.) should be present." -- should both cover art and gameplay be present, especially if the game does something unique, where visual screenshots are essential. Just the cover art sounds insufficient.

"The gameplay section must be sourced" -- Why "must be"? Is there a particular reason one might find things like "Shooting red bloobles earns the player points." when one has used the actual game to support this? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image requirement is only for the cover or equivalent. A gameplay screenshot may not always be necessary.

Every FAC for video games seems to beg for sources when they are lacking in plot and gameplay section. As long as the game has been covered by reliable sources, you can pretty much assure that gameplay can be described easily. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure what game does not benefit from a screenshot when one is possible. Even text adventures get screenshots if only to show how they differ from "traditional" format.

I do myself prefer that everything is sourced. But if we don't require plot references, why do we require gameplay references? What's the substantial difference here? After all, plot is often more open to interpretation. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay -- I would add that jargon and technical terms have to be at least linked and generally explained in a way that a general reader would get the basic idea. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about soundtracks? Merchandise? Cultural impact? Controversy? Do those need to be incorporated? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all games have these, to a degree requiring calling out. Soundtrack and merchandise are elements listed for Development, while cultural impact and controversy would be part of legacy. But again, note that I'm only calling out the sections that are present in nearly every VG with few exceptions. It would be difficult to call out every possible section. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same as first, I thought "required" means "required if available". So my idea is that we ask that these are included if there is information about them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you're going with that. Let me try some wording there. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If the template is used, every entry needs to be referenced." -- by general infobox-ish guidelines, they shouldn't contain any essential info that's not in the prose (this also applies to lead but commonly neglected). It is also recommended that the main reference (with the citation markup) would appear in the text (for mirrors, non-PC devices, print and such) instead of the score "infobox". I think that should be clarified. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Game's MetaCritic or Game Rankings page" -- I thing we should avoid giving specific ones and rather say "score aggregators" generally and give the two as most common wide-used examples. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The review section is appropriately balanced" -- what does it mean by "balanced"? I get what it's trying to say, but I think it needs more explicit wording with NPOV and BIAS mentioned. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]