[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CVG)

Call of Duty retrospective rankings

[edit]

With the Call of Duty series now over 20 years old, I'm thinking it would be beneficial to add retrospective rankings of the games, i.e. from worst to best. As a CoD player myself, the CoD community has specific ideas on what are some of the best games and some of the worst. Additionally, reception to the games themselves has changed a lot over time; even critic and fan reception on launch is different than the end of every game's life cycle (especially in recent years). I was interested to see what critics and publications think so I did a little research and there are plenty of sources that rank the main games and/or pick the best ones. Here's a few:

I'm sure there are more but you get the gist. Basically, I think it would be beneficial to start adding retrospective rankings into the respective articles, as the majority of them only have initial reception, which can change over time. It would be nice to see in prose how these games hold up years down the line and how they are viewed within the franchise as a whole. I'm willing to get a start on this but I wanted to see what others thought first. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, although I recommend only using a few of these lists at a time to try and avoid repetition, and also attribute who exactly ranks the game at that place. λ NegativeMP1 22:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with the other editors. Offering a different take on NegativeMP1's advice, I recommend that we avoid having one sentence per source (e.g.: 10 sentences / one long paragraph). I wouldn't mind including most or even all of the sources, but they could probably be summarized in fewer sentences. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably want to avoid things like "John Doe ranked X as the 7th best game in the franchise, while Jane Doe ranked it as the 8th best game." However, something like "Both John and Jane ranked X as an average game in the franchise in a 2024 retrospective" would be good, preferably of course with matching reasoning. When multiple writers point out the same things, then that's definitely worth including. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to merge console game into video game console

[edit]

Most of console game is a heavy WP:OVERLAP with video game console or simply video game in general. All in all, there is nothing particularly distinguishing about a video game when it is played on a console as opposed to a PC, save for select - usually Nintendo - consoles that utilize non-standard control methods that are not a typical controller. I also feel like PC game and gaming computer suffer similar WP:OVERLAP issues, with a large chunk of the PC game article being about hardware tech. I would like to solicit feedback about a potential combination of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see part of that serving as a starting point for History of video game consoles which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere. — Masem (t) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good case for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Awards FLCR

[edit]

I have nominated Appy Awards for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the Nuovo Award? I'm slightly concerned myself that the sourcing is too bare-bones for a FL, though perhaps I'm being too hard on myself. I'd just like some opinions on whether or not it is good enough to retain or whether I should nominate it for FLRC. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball FX

[edit]

Hi. I wanted to create a page based on the Zen Studios game Pinball FX (the new version not the original). I dont really know how to build pages so I was wondering if more expierenced editors might help me. (Creating an info box, setting up citations etc.). I created a chart listing the tables but that's really it. Its about as barebones as you can get. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game) Any help via editing would be appreciated.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick comment, in the first column of the DLC you have links that are mixing links to notable pinball tables (eg the Williams ones) with links to just general fiction franchises or similar works. I know it seems simpler to have the single column for that but given that there are real-world tables included in the game, you may need an indicator for identifying the physical tables brought into the game. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: Push Square and Digitally Downloaded. --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Pinball FX, Pinball FX 2 and Pinball FX 3 all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).Wikieditor9117 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?

[edit]

Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Wikipedia:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 2 to December 14)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14

Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing an article like Fortnite Ballistic makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. Panini! • 🥪 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. Masem (t) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is all of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it was a good idea, ya bully. Panini! • 🥪 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates

[edit]

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates look for more opinions on fixing template doc in line with MOS:VG -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Clannad (video game)

[edit]

Clannad (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Decommissioning Dates

[edit]

Apologies if this has already been posted. I stumbled across this while searching for for something else, Ubisoft maintain a list of all their server shutdowns by title and platform stretching back to 2013. Might be useful if anyone need to check a date. The list is in two parts A to M and N to Z - X201 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter fighting style

[edit]

After researching about Street Fighter, I started this section in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: Ansatsuken or Shotokan. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Next Nintendo Console

[edit]

I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Wikipedia when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the Nintendo Switch page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff

[edit]

While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.

It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu has removed the video games calendar search from its website!

[edit]

Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown here. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1265099041"