Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 157

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160

Draft:Super Luigi 3D World Deluxe

Hello, WikiProject Video games,

This draft has been sitting for a couple days tagged for speedy deletion and there seems to be some disagreement over whether it is or is not a hoax. For speedy deletion purposes, a page has to be unquestionably a hoax to be deleted under CSD (and not nominated at MFD) and this page has been tagged, untagged and tagged again. I thought folks here would be the experts on this subject. So what do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And 4 minutes after posting my question, it's deleted. It's so nice to come to an active WikiProject! Thanks for the timely response. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
My uncle at Nintendo actually confirmed, not a hoax. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Video game Console templates

I propose that all major video game consoles should have their own templates like the Nintendo consoles. Templates like Template:PlayStation are way to large and should be broken up. I have created a example using the PlayStation 2.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, as long as the templates don't end up having 3-4 entries or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement in the PlayStation case, though following up on Dissident93's comment, I think breaking up navboxes like Template:NEC video game consoles and Template:Neo Geo is unnecessary and would result in excessively small navboxes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
So I should just do Sega, Sony, Microsoft, and maybe Atari consoles? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. And thanks for doing this, incidentally.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

LowTierGod

LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would anyone have time to look over LowTierGod? It's currently being discussed at ANI but I figured WPVG members may have some ideas. Woodroar (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with uploading and using new images in article

Hi. Can someone who is proficient with uploading images for their use in articles please help me out with replacing those in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered? I'm planning to nominate it for FAC and this is my last hurdle. I helped with getting the article's original gameplay images in several years ago (one of which was my own screenshot because I didn't know you could use other examples online!), but it was my first and only time and I'm not familiar with the process. I have reached out to one such user several times without much luck but didn't want to keep badgering them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The reationales seemed fine before but I replaced them with our project-standard templates just in case. IceWelder [✉] 20:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to upload new images you can just overwrite the old files or use the same templates; this is the blueprint I use:
== Summary ==
{{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot
| Article = 
| Use = Section
| Name = [[]]
| Publisher = [[]]
| Developer = [[]]
| Website = 
| Purpose = 
}}

== Licensing ==
{{Non-free video game screenshot|image has rationale=yes}}
IceWelder [✉] 20:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder: Thanks. Is it the link under "File history" for uploading a new image? Also, don't I have to do anything over at Wikimedia Commons? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikibenboy94, As long as you are uploading a fair use image there's no need to; you can either use the template (More info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates#Image tags) or you can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Panini🥪 22:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikibenboy94, yeah, using "Upload a new version of this file" will suffice. Commons is only for freely licensed images (screenshots, cover art, etc. are non-free in 99.99% of cases), so there is nothing to do over there. IceWelder [✉] 22:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder: How will I know what the optimal resolution is, as I know you can't use the original as it is? Do I just need to experiment? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The maximum resolution per WP:IMAGERES is 100,000 pixels. You can either scale it yourself (IMAGERES has a formula for calculating the correct width/height) or tag the higher-res image with {{Non-free reduce}} and wait a few days for DatBot to handle the request automatically. IceWelder [✉] 11:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
IceWelder I've followed the above steps (am waiting on DatBot to resize the images), but on desktop, while the thumbnails are of the correct images, clicking on them shows an inflated, pixelated version of the originals (at least for me). I've bypassed my browser cache, but I wasn't sure if I also needed to purge and if so how you would go about this? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikibenboy94, sounds like a cache issue on your site. The screenshots render just fine for me in all scenarios. If you're using Chrome, press Ctrl+Shift+R while the pixelated image is visible. I think it's Shift+F5 on Firefox. IceWelder [✉] 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
IceWelder Managed to get it working after a few Ctrl+F5's in slightly different scenarios. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
IceWelder Hopefully this is the last issue! I noticed that the Source section of the image summaries has "Captured in game", however the new versions were taken from an article (https://www.pcgamesn.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered-graphics-comparison-port-review) which I believe should be cited in the section; I've seen a lot of examples for articles where the link is just used on its own as evidence, so presumably it's also fine to remove the "Captured in-game". However, what's odd is that, unlike the one for Modern Warfare, the Remastered Source info includes "May be found at the following website", yet this text is not showing in editing and I can't find any way to remove it? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: "May be found at the following website:" is generated by |Website=, whereas |Source= omits it. Both occupy the "Source" row so only one can be used. Pasting the source URL should be fine, though I like using {{cite web}} for this as well. IceWelder [✉] 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Women in Gaming

Crystal Dynamics has released Meagan Marie's 2018 book Women in Gaming: 100 Professionals of Play for free on their website—direct PDF link here. Lots of great information about some important figures in the industry, and especially useful as we try to close the gender gap on Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellent resource from scanning through - alone not enough to support notability, but with at least one other SIGCOV source, should help with a standalone for most of the women featured. --Masem (t) 01:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Arcade game" vs "Arcade video game"

Indrian (talk · contribs) raised a good point at Talk:History of arcade games in that the article there in the state is mostly around video-game based arcade games and doesn't touch the broader idea of "arcade games" (electro-mechanical, pinball, etc.) This would also apply to arcade game. There's easy ways to fix this (expanding, moving, etc.) and the content itself is not an issue, but it is what topic "arcade game" should be considered as the primary topic - the whole of all types of games of amusement that would include video-game-based arcade games, or to specifically video-game games.

Obviously, unless necessary, when we are talking video games in general, we can presume "arcade game" means the video-based type, but its a matter of using the best terms at the broader level like in these history and terminology articles. --Masem (t) 14:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

To add, this also potentially going to affect categories like Category:Arcade games (which solely is dedicated to video-style games, but included old-school arcade games like Periscope (arcade game). (Note that if we moved video-based games to "Arcade video games", I would NOT change our disabmiguation term since "arcade game" still qualifies. --Masem (t) 15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

As a heads up, I've done some page moving to make sure we're consistent, notably we now have arcade video game for what falls under this project. Its not wrong to call games like Space Invaders or Pac-Man as "arcade games" so there's no rush to fix these in articles ("arcade video game" is just more precise). However, I am going to have Category:Arcade games moved to Category:Arcade video games via bot tools to reflect this. --Masem (t) 17:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (April 5 to April 11)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

April 5

April 6

April 7

April 8

April 9

  • None

April 10

April 11

  • None

Developer citation concern

Hello.

Recently, I've been digging through the articles of more contemporary Nintendo game releases and found a reoccurring lack of citation for the involvement of co-developers in various respective pages. Digging through releases since 2018 on the Nintendo EPD page made it evident that the matter hasn't just been occasional. When bringing this up on EPD's talk page, a response from an editor also made mention of another complaint of note in the attribution of development to the division if Nintendo has any internal involvement with the games at all. With this having been brought to my attention, I'd begun to notice that attributions to Nintendo EAD and Nintendo SPD were similarly made without any citations at all.

Taken all together, I feel this represents a rampant and major lack of diligence with regard to sourcing. Of course, if the developer were only listed as Nintendo, many of the indirect sources already available in many of these situations would be sufficient, but the particularity of specific internal department designations is something that should reasonably be cited. This is leaving aside the aforementioned cases involving support studios and co-development partners who are also matter-of-factly presented despite situations where they aren't regarded in typical press coverage, promotional material, or even splash-screens for the games. These also can go to the extent of being off-handedly presented in footnotes with their role, which is a degree of specificity that makes for even more needed references that aren't provided.

I'll be trying to do my part where possible here and there, especially in more egregious cases, but the extent of it is broad enough that I figured bringing it to the attention of a place like this would be far more fruitful than pursuing the individual talk-pages of these games or making further comments on those of the individual departments. I think that this is a matter worth investigating to ensure future articles can avoid being plagued with similar issues and hope that others who feel similarly might be able to keep an eye out or take more constructive action.

Thank you very much to you editors who've read this for your time and effort, and another thanks to Ferret for pointing me towards here from the Nintendo sub-section of the project. Take care. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I always think that mentioning "Nintnedo" as the developer suffices already, and we don't need to mention the internal department designations in the lead or the infobox. The same goes for Capcom/Square Enix/Sega, unless the division in question has its own identity (e.g. Ryu Ga Gotoku Studio). OceanHok (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a good take and I think that it'd be fair as a potential default, especially in cases such as these where sourcing is utterly disregarded. The broader company name is also inherently far more substantiable than the more specific department claims that, in some cases, don't have any published references from a reliable source at all or are not reasonably citable otherwise. Something of the sort being enforced might be of value in diminishing the amount of this kind of thing popping up in future articles and act as a useful guideline for dealing with what's already there.
With that acknowledged, there'd still be the matter of the co-developers just being unceremoniously credited. Then there's the Nintendo EPD, Nintendo SPD, and especially the Nintendo EAD pages themselves with their swathes of games listed without sourcing; even when there are supposed reference, some of the ones I've sifted through don't actually establish the games being made by the respective divisions anyway. Fact Scanner (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Violence and video games lead summary

At Violence and video games, an IP editor is insisting on making this change. The #Studies section discusses APA findings and I feel the lead is currently correctly summarizing the article despite this one quote cited by IP from the APA study. My reading of the sources is that APA used language that didn't match its findings and was criticized by other sources because of this. I think I am reading this correctly and the IPs language change is biased and the source and quote cherry-picked to make a point. I'd like to double-check since I am not that familiar with these studies, nor am I likely truly unbiased myself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the report, this is definitely mischaracterizing the APA's stance. The repot is a recent APA review of other literature that tries to connect violence and video games, and while the report does state what the IP includes, it is what the APA found in summary from these other reports, and there are several cavaets on that. They do agree that violent video games lead to aggressive behavior - a factor they've stated before - but the step to actual violence is still not there. --Masem (t) 12:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I've better incorporated that source, but yes, the IP user is completely off base. The issue the APA focuses on is that there is an likelihood of aggression, but that's not equal to violent behavior as many want to claim there is. (Aggression can lead further to violent behavior but there are other factors beyond games that would have to be involved from APA's other statements). --Masem (t) 13:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cloud9 League of Legends vs Cloud9 (League of Legends)

There's a discussion regarding the article name of the Cloud9 League of Legends team here. More WP:VG member discussion is welcome. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga gameplay section

I'd like some input from more experienced editors on Talk:Lego_Star_Wars:_The_Complete_Saga#Copy_or_link_"Gameplay"_section_from_"Lego_Star_Wars_II:_The_Original_Trilogy"_page discussing whether or not the gameplay section should be copied in from its predecessor, Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Judgment (video game)'s remaster

Some time ago, Sega revealed a remastered version for the game Judgment (video game) revealing various changes about the visuals and other consoles. However, I haven't been able to find a single source where the company talked with a journalist about this remaster. Could somebody give it a look? I tried google tools like recent articles but sites have been focused more in regards to the apparent sequel the game might have. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tintor2, From doing a quick search it doesn't appear they have talked with anyone about it yet. However, using WP:VG/SE I found a few results on simple coverage on its existence. Don't fret, though; I'm still waiting on development info for Mario Golf: Super Rush. Panini!🥪 22:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: Thanks. Seems like the main reason for the lack of information is that Western port might come out in May rather than this month but I managed to add stuff involving the major improvements.Tintor2 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Last of Us Part II critical response

I've just started a new discussion at Talk:The Last of Us Part II#"Critical response" opening sentence and would appreciate any new opinions. Thanks! – Rhain ☔ 03:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another new platform to consider: Oculus Quest 2

In reading news that we're getting yet another remake of RE4 but in VR [1], I learned that the upcoming Oculus Quest 2 will not require a base platform to run , unlike prior VR systems. This arguably makes it a new gaming platform; in the same discussions that we have agreed to Stadia and Amazon Luna to be new gaming platforms, should we consider the Quest 2 as a separate gaming platform?

Alternatively, if a game is a VR game (full VR or that includes a VR mode), might we want to say that a platform is VR (not specific to any model)? --Masem (t) 22:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Quest 2 has been out for some time. Like Quest 1, it runs as a standalone unit, that's correct. Quest 1 and 2 aren't that different - kind of like different generations of iPod. Both units share a unique Quest store for game purchases (and other apps). The Quest should absolutely be treated as a platform imo. Popcornfud (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Which is why I ask, do we narrow it down to the specific headset (Which I can see flooding infoboxes for titles that have highly portable VR versions) or just call it VR and leave it to the body to sort it out? If we go this direction, I'd think I'd prefer the VR route, its the easiest, and we can argue the "availability" for different VR systems is similar to calling storefronts (in being inappropriate in the infobox though fine in the body). --Masem (t) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with this. Or maybe we could have a dedicated VR parameter? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
We've been doing a good job trimming out excess parameters on the infobox and while I could see some benefit of "VR support=yes/no", it's just one of those things that get too far into weeds that 1) are better explained in the lede/body and 2) would lead to other requests along the same lines such as other controller support or storefront options. I think just saying that "virtual reality" is a valid platform in the infobox not only covers a situation like with this RE4 VR remake but for other games that have VR (like No Man's Sky) quickly shows its available. It's just the nuances of whether we break that up further by Oculus/HTC/Steam/etc. to be more exact, or keep it simple which may seem deceptive (eg RE4 VR is an Oculus exclusive but the box would just say "Virtual reality"). I could argue that if we stood with just using VR, and the game is available on exactly one VR system, we could add ("Oculus-only") after VR to explain that; we'd not list out each VR system when it is available for multiple VR systems. --Masem (t) 20:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I'm fine with adding it, but I always support expanding what's considered acceptable to list in the "platforms" area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to start a separate parameter for "Platform type" since there are only few types of Platforms: Home Console, Handheld console, Personal computer, mobile phone, and now VR?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

StarCraft vs StarCraft II

A page split at StarCraft is being discussed at Talk:StarCraft#Starcraft_II_split. Primarily, is "StarCraft" (covering only the original game and it's single expansion) a distinct series/franchise separate from "StarCraft II"? -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Short Description redux

In the recent (very helpful) discussion on this subject, Masem wrote 'If we are just trying to designate a video game separate from a different term, then year, "YYYY video game" is more than sufficient. It is when we have to disambiguate against any other "video game" with the same or similar name, the year is not quite sufficient as that's the less common way to attach identity to a game, hence using either the genre or the devs, depending on which one is likely more useful (eg the Prey example).' But what do we do in the (appallingly common) situation where the name, genre, and developer are all the same, e.g. Clock Tower (1995 video game) and Clock Tower (1996 video game), Doom (1993 video game) and Doom (2016 video game)?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple: 1995 video game, 1996 video game, 1993 video game, 2016 video game. The years aren't the same, so we don't need to disambiguate them any further. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 to this. I find it best not to overthink short descriptions. As long as it's helping someone pick an article out from a menu of options, it's probably good enough! DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
In addition, as developer + genre is the same there's really no easy additions to distinguish these further, though in the Clock Tower games it could be platform ("Super Famicom" v "PlayStation") since the year's are rather close. Doom's case is far harder since everything's the same, but the year difference should be sufficient to make it clear which is which. --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Name discussion at Wipeout (Psygnosis video game series)

Theres currently a discussion at Wipoue article. If anyone wants to add any input, you can find the discussion here Talk:Wipeout (Psygnosis video game series)#Article name change.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's an AfD you can access here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 American game show).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC Note

We currently have five video game featured article candidates. It would be appreciated if they could get some extra numbers.

And to note, Final Fantasy IX is a TFL candidate. Panini!🥪 12:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"Computer game"

I see that computer game redirects to PC game. The "PC game" lead begins: A PC game, also known as a computer game...

Is the right redirect, and not video game? I think "computer game" is often used interchangeably with any kind of video game, whether played on a PC or not. (This may be less true in North America?)

Also, is a video game played on a Mac therefore not a computer game, by this logic? Popcornfud (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could move computer game (disambiguation) to computer game and get rid of the redirect. Computer game can mean multiple things, so I don't think targeting a specific page is the right idea. JOEBRO64 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"Computer game" generally being referred to as "PC game" (where PC is "personal computer" which would include Mac/Linux systems) is supported from one of Wolf's books (if not others), though the hatnotes at PC game properly get people to video game if that's what they really meant. I'm not sure if we can move that disambiguation page. --Masem (t) 13:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Having asked a couple of American friends about this, they definitely feel the terms aren't used interchangeably in AmE, but I can assure you that they definitely are (or have been) in other English-speaking parts of the world. Popcornfud (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate this concern. The colloquial use refers to a PC game, but the more literal application would broadly encompass Video games as a whole. Maybe the disambiguation could be adjusted in its elaboration and provide Video game as an option for redirection? Fact Scanner (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
here's a weird idea, what if "Computer game" was the disambiguation page but "Computer games" still led to PC game?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue being posed by Popcornfud would still exist in that case. Also, on its own terms, I don't know if the suggested change would work out intuitively or provide any benefit either, as it seems like an arbitrary manner of setting the redirect. Fact Scanner (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally despise article titles that different only in case or a single letter. That Wikipedia believes this is clear enough disambiguation for readers is silly. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Fact Scanner: From what I understand, he's asking if there is enough to distinguish games on PC games from any form of games. At the moment, there is Arcade game and Console game, so naturally Computer game article would exist if notable because they are not on arcades or consoles but it is a form of gaming.
@Ferret: very well, then we don't have to do that idea.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: To me, his concern reads as not necessarily agreeing with the term computer game redirecting to pc game due to the term being potentially referential to video games in general. He also brings up another pitfall of the classification that exists due to PC also having become colloquially -and in marketing- used as a term to reference hardware running Windows or hardware that doesn't run Apple OS. Fact Scanner (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. Popcornfud (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe I already addressed that with the suggestion of Computer game just being the main disambiguation page instead of Computer game (disambiguation). I just added the idea that Computer Games would still redirect to PC games (an idea that I'm not holding strongly and was just a suggestion). Computer game should just have a disambiguation page that shows all the possible articles. As far as "Apple OS", there is "MacOS" and there is "iOS", so far from what I see on Wikipedia, MacOS and iOS are still separate and support different hardware. So I'm a little confused at the moment about the question. Is there an operating system that runs on both a computer and other devices not classified as a computer?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that the fundamental problem would still exist with that posed solution unless the disambiguation (regardless of how it's configured) is expanded to include video games as an option and has the descriptor adjusted to reflect that increased breadth. With regard to the bit your asking about, it isn't to suggest that there's a non-computer device that runs an OS, it's to highlight that the issue of computer game being matter-of-factly redirected to pc game is not how the other similar issue is handled; pc game usually being used to reference a game on Windows/non-Apple hardware didn't prevent the pc game article from being referential of all games on the hardware-type regardless of OS. Basically just an example to show that the way these were handled is inconsistent.Fact Scanner (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources that refer to video games as computer games regardless of the platform, then we can include that as an alternate name in video games and if we go with my proposal of making Computer games the main disambiguation page, then we can add video games as one of the options. So it's a very simple fix.
Once again. I just don't understand this inference that PC gaming is specifically on non-Apple devices. Where is this coming from?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
For the first matter, the Terminology section of the video game page itself both defines and references this clearly. Not only this, but it is literally established in the Oxford dictionary and likely others. For the second, the very history of the Personal Computing industry at the rise of apple had a very prominent space of market distinction perpetuated by Apple in dozens of Mac vs. PC ads and gereral rhetoric, journalists in the field across multiple generations spanning to this very one as would be made evident by googling "Mac vs. PC" and looking at the news section, and the broader computer enthusiast communities who make the colloquial distinction themselves. This is a long and broadly evident matter. It's almost surprising to read of someone unfamiliar with the matter when discussing related concepts, frankly. Fact Scanner (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Then if the article already recognizes Video games as computer games then my solution to making "Computer game" into a disambiguation page should address all the concerns necessary.
I had a feeling that this was coming from a simple Mac vs PC mentality. Keep in mind Mac vs PC is recentism. Yes, Mac owners and non-apple owners are different breeds of customers and modern Mac owner aren't recognize for what PC gaming is known for, but that doesn't mean all non-Apple devices are not PC gaming. The Mac vs PC is mostly an advertisement war, but they're both PCs, therefore any games on them is PC gaming (and if Apple Arcade it may still be relevant in modern PC gaming). Apple is still historically relevant to PC gaming such as Apple II, Apple IIGS, Classic Mac OS. Regardless, modern Mac gaming is part of PC gaming history, even if it doesn't fit the mold you want PC gaming to have.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is basically why we try to avoid using "PC" (the abbreviation) in describing platforms and spell it out instead (Microsoft Windows, or for older games, MS-DOS, etc.). It can be confused between "personal computers" (which is generally what is meant) and the "[IBM]-PC compatible" platform, which (as I recall) how the term was more likely used in the 1990s but as Macs and Linux systems got game, was dropped to just Personal Computers. The Mac v PC campaign did help confuse the terms. --Masem (t) 16:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand the confusion when it comes to Personal Computer (PC) and IBM-PC. Its a valid point. I think in that case i will support the idea that we should renaming it to "Video games on personal computers" as you suggested. Should Console games and Arcade games follow the same naming convention?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Only if it's backed up by reliable sources that computer games are also commonly referred to as video games and more common than referring to Computer games from PC games. If we can verify that, I would support this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"computer game" or "PC game" is not really a genre. There is something to be said that a "PC game" have generally had different flavors of gaming from arcade or console up until the mid-2000s (the confluence of console and PC hardware to help portability), so it is a distinct idea. But we may need consider that while this is a fully valid term, it is a bit vague, and maybe it may be better to have what is at "PC game" as "Video games on personal computers", which then we can describe the ideas and distinctions of PC/Computer game relative to video games; this would also clarify that this includes your DOS , IBM-PC, Windows, Mac, Linux, and any other OS that has desktop versions, rather than tie it mistakenly to just PC-compatible computers. --Masem (t) 16:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel the "PC game" article should be restricted specifically to games on Windows and IBM-compatible computers, because that's what the term "PC" usually means. No one would ever call a Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum game a "PC game", and yet there also isn't an article that covers games on all computer platforms, so they get lumped into the PC game article. Perhaps, alongside the Windows-focused "PC game" article, we should make a new umbrella article titled "home computer game" or something along those lines. Phediuk (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "PC game" to related to the IBM-PC compatible platform (MS-DOS and extending to Windows) was likely popular in the 1990s as to distinguish it from C64 or Mac games. But today, "PC game" is used to differentiate games from "console games" or "mobile games", and thus applies to games played on any PC. I definitely would not create a separate article to distinguish "IMB-PC compat" games from general "personal computer games" (that's far too narrow a cut) but we do want to be clear about this change in terminology if we can do that. --Masem (t) 17:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Phediuk: I again agree with Masem, the modern definition of Personal Computer (PC) has evolved to the point that a home computer is considered a type of personal computer. This is made relevant in the articles such as home computer and microcomputer. I also find it not useful to make a separate article and try to monitor the term "PC" to the old definition. I think most readers want to know the history of games on all personal computers home/personal/micro.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It would take some work as these are not easily searchable but looking through archives of the 1980s magazines to see how terms are used following the introduction of the IBM-PC in 1985 (which is where "personal computer" derived from), particularly to compare games that only came out on the IBM-PC compat platform compared to Amiga /etc, to verify that at that time (late 80s/early 90s) that "PC game" was more implicitly "IBM-PC game" rather than all personal computer games. I will say that by the mid-1990s, with Doom's + Myst's success, "PC game" representing games on any personal computer was clearly the norm. It would be nice to be able to spell this out somewhere but it's hard to find sourcing for it. --Masem (t) 17:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Per request, here are some random examples of British RSses using "computer game" and "video game" as interchangeable terms: BBC, BBC, Guardian, Guardian, Times, Independent. One explanation for this etymology might be older gaming computers popular in the UK like the BBC Micro, Spectrum, and Amiga. Popcornfud (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good on you for the references. Don't honestly see why it's necessary when the video game article itself acknowledges the matter already, but it's some added weight regardless. Fact Scanner (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I apologize, I wasn't discounting the term or demanding proof. I was just making sure that it was covered in the article. I was satisfied with Fact Scanner's response that it was already covered in the article. With that said we have a few options solutions that we can implement.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: in Russian, "компьютерная игра" (kompyuternaya igra) is literally "computer game" and that's the one and only term any sources use. There is no "video game". Fun fact concluded. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I would suspect that this was due to lack of any official console or arcade game sales into the country (combo of the USSR and the weak protection for IP). I would not be surprised to see a similar situation in China where the primary form of gaming was on computers due to the console ban. However, as we are en.wiki, we do want to focus on the English treatment of the language, and can mention the side cases if they are well sourced. --Masem (t) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect request

[ Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Computer_game ]

Colors for infobox video game player

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox video game player regarding adding team colors for esports player articles, similar to other sports player articles. Opinions are welcome. Pbrks (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion about infobox colors and fictional characters, and the consensus was strongly in favor of not using different colors. I'm not sure what would be different about esports players... Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that discussion. This is, however, this is a widely used standard, and it is not used purely for decorative reasons, which was the main reason for opposing colors in the infoboxes from the previous discussion. Pbrks (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (April 12 to April 18)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April 12

April 13

April 14

April 15

April 16

April 17

April 18

This has been a heck of a week for me, so this slipped my mind until tonight. We should be back on schedule next week. --PresN 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for doing this on any timetable at all! Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Gnosia has a fighting chance to be a better article if anyone is interested in helping flesh out the page. GamerPro64 04:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently missing 電撃攻略ステーション (Dengeki Kouyraku Station) section at the main Dengeki PlayStation/ASCII entries

Was browsing through Yahoo! Japan auctions and noticed several listings showing 電撃攻略ステーション (Dengeki Kouryaku Station). Neither the English version here or the Japanese wikis mentioned this, but given how old and infrequently published this "special magazine" is, I'm not surprised it isn't mentioned. (In fact, not all of the listings used the full name, either just "電撃攻略" or "電撃" with the volume number.) Just a FYI in case anyone wants to/is able to research further. -23.241.11.196 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages TFA in May

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages is currently scheduled as today's featured article on May 21. I took a quick look over and for an older FA it seems in good shape, but as the main nominator is no longer active, some more eyes on it to make sure it's still up to date and for its main page appearance would be good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s not accurate since nothing is scheduled last 4th. In fact there is a non specific date nomination for Final Fantasy IX which could be problematic for this if it goes though.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog at WP:TFA/R

Hi! I just wanted to let the project know that Sonic the Hedgehog is currently at WP:TFA/R. The relevant discussion is here. JOEBRO64 17:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Judgment remaster

Sorry for bothering again with this but I was surprised by the Judgment (video game)'s remasters being released worldwide rather than just in Japan that I had to cancel the ga nomination. Should the remasters be mentioned with the article's reception section or be given its owns? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The question is how detail is there about the remaster. If its just "this dev did it to add these improvements", which can be summarized in a paragraph or two, along with a few added paragraphs on reception, it doesn't need a separate article. If it is a remake ala FFVII or Demons Souls where there's a lot more about the development and changes, that would make a new article more appropriate. Remasters, though I don't think really call for a separate article but given we have only just learned about it, it might be too early to call. --Masem (t) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Only next gen improvements like graphics, loading times and framerate. Nothing like Yakuza Kiwami which was completely remade from the original Yakuza. The rest of the game is identical but I don't know if I should at least give a paragraph to the critical response about whether or not the journalists find it better.Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Until its out, you'll obviously have no way to judge if the reception will be wholly different but I very much doubt it would. I would prepare the current Judgement article to expand on the remaster where appropriate, and at worst, if it surprises us all by being significantly better to write volumes about it, then you can. --Masem (t) 17:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Metacritic does have over 14 reviews of the remaster. Shouldn't I use those? Same with an image comparison like this.Tintor2 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (April 19 to April 25)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

April 19

April 20

April 21

April 22

April 23

April 24

April 25

When was AlphaDream founded?

I was working on my draft for the Mario & Luigi series when I found two sources that didn't match up.

Kotaku: "Founded in 2000, AlphaDream was originally known as Alpha Star and was staffed with people who had formerly been at Square, including former Square President Tetsuo Mizuno. The studio is best known for the Mario & Luigi RPG series."

IGN: "AlphaDream started life in May 1991 as Mente Tomo, an interior and exterior finishing work company. It briefly changed its name to AlphaStar Soft in 2001 when it began developing video games, before finally settling on AlphaDream. The fledgling studio attracted talent including former Square president Tetsuo Mizuno."

What should I go with? And a side note, there's also a lot of discrepancies in the Wikipedia article itself, such as "The company was founded in 2000 by Tetsuo Mizumo". Panini!🥪 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it's clear that Mizuno didn't found the company at the very least. Have you been able to find any JP sources? Try searching for interviews or profiles using the company's name in Japanese or search Mizuno's name in Japanese. You can use DeepL to translate the text (I find it's more readable than Google Translate these days) and cite the JP sources directly. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The video game studio started in 2000. I think in this case the primary source should be believed. AlphaDream's website literally says "Established January 12, 2000 (Heisei 12)" [2]. I supposed it is possible that prior to that some of its corporate structure was used as a interior/exterior finishing company but, while that may be worth a mention in the History section, the video game studio clearly started in 2000. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bloons TD 6

I am working on Draft:Bloons TD 6. I believe the game Bloons TD 6 has a lot of potential to be a pretty decent article, especially because it's noteworthy for being a top game on the App Store and Google Play consistently. At its current state, the Draft:Bloons TD 6 article looks like a Start class article, but it is complete enough that it has sufficient coverage of independent sources, and therefore should guarantee full placement on Wikipedia. But of course, I would like some feedback from you fellows about any possible improvements to this article. I even found a lot of useful independent reliable sources for this subject just by searching the News part of Google. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000, I could pitch in for a bit, family games are at the core the only thing I really care about. Panini!🥪 11:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox video game player

I've proposed some changes to {{Infobox video game player}} at Template talk:Infobox video game player#Proposed changes. I considered WP:BOLDing this, but it does involve depreciating some parameters. Opinions are appreciated. Pbrks (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronicles of Elyria

Evening all. So I stumbled across this game being discussed on youtube. Seems like it has a very sordid last two years in particular, but was far from great before it. The article is / was almost nearly reliant on CoE and the game studio for any content. Looking online, coverage is scant. MMORPG.com seems to be covering their recent legal issues, but are they a reliable source? Anyway - coverage seems so weak as to barely warrant keeping the article, but I am holding off AfD'ing as I expect the coverage of legal proceedings to draw some attention eventually but I thought if I flagged it here maybe someone would be interested in doing some digging for RS to try and source some of the content that has been tagged since January? If I get chance I will take a look myself. Koncorde (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a note on MMORPG.com: it is considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS, but the last discussion was about ten years ago, so things may have changed. – Rhain ☔ 03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox display issue

Don't know of this is the right place to raise this, but checking a couple of articles, I noticed that "Infobox" templates are behaving strangely. The top text and image and image caption are being aligned to the left rather than the centre. It looks as if something's been added without the proper coding or something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you link to an example article where you think this is happening so we can take a look? DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This is has been brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Pbrks (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (April 26 to April 30)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

April 26

April 27

April 28

April 29

April 30

The 1.0 bot seems to be down, so only 5 days of pages this week (the next time it runs it will include all the pages that should have shown up in the gap). --PresN 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that after being redirected in 2016 the Homebrew Channel article was restored without any changes this week. Is there enough for an article or should it be redirected again?--65.92.163.98 (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for saying something. I restored the redirect, as the notability concerns weren't addressed at all. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s solves that though if it ever does become an article it should be at Knighthood (video game) since there are no other articles for video games titled Knighthood.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was looking at WP:VG/RC and it looks like the bot (JL-Bot) has removed DYK credit for Inscape (company). It seems the error may come from the fact that the article's title changed. On April 3 the title went from "Inscape (company)" to "Inscape (video game publisher)". That change was registered with JL-Bot on April 4. But then on April 24 the title went back to "Inscape (company)" and JL-Bot responded later that day by entirely removing the entry. Seems like an error. I wonder how many times this has happened previously... Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms

Sergecross73 I see you help maintain the list of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms but I can't see how this isn't a massive violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Being on Spotify or iTunes is not a defining trait of a soundtrack/album, and basically any major modern OST is going to eventually be released on them anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I created it actually, being aware of List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl, and it's respective precedent that such a list was notable and kept at AFD. The list has ballooned to a large size because there's an editor who is currently adding entries en masse without sources. They seem like that ZacharyAlejandro on the List of Switch games article - helpful at finding raw data, but not great with policy or communication. I'm currently working through his entries to what's sourced and what's not. The original aim was just documenting soundtracks that were sourced to reliable sources (not music streaming sources) which is much smaller. Sergecross73 msg me 11:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure the directionality of the logic holds here. Vinyl was a dead format long before game soundtracks began being printed on it. It's still a dead format, current and waning "revival" notwithstanding. One can envision a point in the near future when game soundtracks on vinyl slows to a trickle (which is already happening) and then ceases almost entirely. In contrast, music streaming is a current and growing business. The list of games with soundtracks on streaming is conceivably every video game soundtrack going forward (or at least until the next major format disruption when music is beamed directly into the microchips implanted in our brains). I'm not sure where the line crosses into NOTDATABASE category but this sure feels like it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Read the vinyl list. The main focus of it is the vinyl revival of the 2010s. A vast majority of the entries are from the 2010s, not the 70s or 80s. Vinyl releases are not approaching or trending towards zero at all. They're up 30% in 2020 alone, and outsold CDs in 2020, so to write it off as some dead medium is incorrect. (And this isn't from some vinyl fanboy talking it something - I've never even owned one before - I just write a lot in the music content area too and saw both as relevant music mediums that get a lot of coverage when soundtracks are announced for them.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I read the vinyl list. For video game soundtracks, it clearly peaked in 2016 and has been trending downward ever since. (Maybe players are learning the same lesson that Average LP Enjoyers learned decades ago that vinyl's fidelity comes at the cost of storage space and degradation.) At any rate, we're not here to relitigate the AFD for the vinyl list. It's clear that it meets WP:SAL because a video game soundtrack getting on vinyl is unusual and therefore a defining trait. The question at hand is about whether that's true for the streaming list, which is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not OSE, it's literally the same type of list that survived an AFD except it's a different medium for the music. It's a relevant precedent. I'm open to changing content or inclusion criteria. I've already been limiting it to games that are notable and that can be reliably sourced without linking to the respective streaming service. I'm open to other ideas. There's something redeemable here though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The OTHERSTUFF argument-to-avoid is literally an appeal to precedent and it's avoided because precedent is not a strong indicator of anything on Wikipedia. I already explained above why I think there's a clear difference between games with soundtracks on vinyl (uncommon, noteworthy) and games with soundtracks on streaming (common, will be even more common going forward). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between OSE and precedent. OSE is pointing to a random situation that simply exists and claiming that that's enough. Precedent is showing where there was a previous discussion and consensus that supports something. Thats valid, and that's what I did. I didn't just point to another article, I pointed to a clear consensus that supported it. Very different. The rest of your "differences" are vague and unfounded. I mean, you made an unsubstantiated claim that vinyl is a dead medium, in which I supplied stats that refuted it, in which you made an unfounded anecdote about it hitting a peak in 2016. Both mediums are statistically and provably on the rise, and soundtracks are still not particularly commmon on streaming services. I mean, one of the biggest publishers in existence is currently allowing virtually zero soundtracks on there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus supports the existence of a list about vinyl soundtracks. That particular AFD does not support the existence of anything else, no matter how similar you think it is. I said game soundtracks hit their peak in 2016 because that's exactly what the vinyl list shows: a peak in 2016 and a severe dropoff since then. Meanwhile, the (incomplete) list of streaming game soundtracks is already almost 3x as long as the vinyl list in a fraction of the time. I think you need to cool off; you're taking this discussion too personally. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's very irritating to offer concrete examples only to have them be handwaved away with unsupported takes on the music industry. I mean you must know how weak of an argument it is to say "well this Wikipedia list has less entries in a given year" as supposed evidence on industry trends. It's ludicrous. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this. This list seems incredibly database-y. And FWIW, I would have also voted to delete the vinyl list as well. If anything it seems like both could be categories at most. --TorsodogTalk 17:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why it's notable that video game soundtracks are moving into streaming platforms. Vinyl I can understand as is an active choice for collector reasons and there is a notable modern-day trend. But to me it's no different than noting when it releases on iTunes or Youtube music.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Why would it being a collectors thing make a difference? Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yea, was just about to pitch in. It's like having a List of Funko Pops article. In my stance, though, this article does not have much significance. But I'm not reading this discussion at all so my opinion doesn't really matter. Carry on. Panini!🥪 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Sergecross73: In my humble opinion, Vinyl is an antiquated platform that isn't the most viable option for the average consumer anymore. But it continues to exist for different reasons than streaming platforms do. Streaming platforms just aim to be the default online option for customers. So I don't think it's good idea to try to list every game soundtrack that is having been released on a streaming platform.
Just to show an example of what kind of list I would support. If mixtapes were making a comeback for video game soundtracks, and there was enough to make a list I would support a list of video game soundtracks released on mixtape. I would not support list of video game soundtracks released on CD, because that is just the default physical medium at this moment.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

AfD notice for Gamers' Choice Awards

Hello,

I thought I'd let the project know I've placed the Gamers' Choice Awards article up for a second deletion nomination, because I feel most of its notability is limited to the legal dispute about who came up with the show, and not the ceremony and trophy itself, which was awarded only once, in 2018, on a brokered program on CBS, and was generally dismissed as an award with low commercial or overall appeal. Thank you for your attention. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Already closed keep, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Last of Us (series)

Would love to hear some more opinions on the necessity of a series article for The Last of Us at Talk:The Last of Us (series)#Bringing it back?. – Rhain ☔ 00:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

UK version of "PlayStation Official Magazine" (OPM) is now "PLAY"; need to disambiguate from the other UK video game magazine "Play"

So the UK version of OPM - PlayStation Official Magazine – UK - has been retired, and per GamesRadar+ it's being relaunched as "PLAY." Someone more word savvier than me is going to need to disambiguate from the other Play UK video game magazine since they're spelled the same, but the former OPM is stylized in all caps. --23.241.11.196 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're the same magazine; the old Play title is being resurrected as the replacement for OPM. The article was updated with this change several days ago. – Rhain ☔ 08:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it would help if the "Play" article had actual citation that it's a relaunch to replace the UK OPM. --23.241.11.196 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The press release specifically states that its called Play Magazine, it calls it a "new" magazines and has no mention of the old PLAY. I'm guessing that it's called Play Magazine so that the initials PM aren't a million miles from OPM. - X201 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Although having seen the cover... I think it's going to be a case of "Play Magazine (usually referred to as Play)... - X201 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirect discussion: computer game -> video game

More opinions are still needed at this redirect discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_5#Computer_game. Popcornfud (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Age of Empires

Hello, I am currently working on a project of adding Age of Empires players and tournaments as they have increased substantially in notability recently. Would anyone be able to help me improve these articles and keep them from being deleted? In addition I'm pretty new but guy who recently won a large tournament is named after a greek god and I Don't know how to make an article use the username without going to the god's page. Would it be possible to add Age of Empires to the list of RTS esports titles along with Warcraft 3 and Starcraft? Its smaller than Starcraft but bigger than Warcraft 3 by a large margin. My recent pages are TheViper and Hidden Cup Youngdrake (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Youngdrake: I can help try to get these articles up to snuff, but I’ll be a bit busy the next couple days. Some quick notes:

  • Do not use liquipedia or other wikis as sources, they are WP:UGC and generally not reliable sources.
  • Check out WP:VG/RS when looking for reliable sources. Reliable news articles are your best bet — if (reliable) news outlets aren’t talking about it, it probably should not be included.

A quick google search for TheViper yields several results from VPEsports and Red Bull; those may be enough to demonstrate notability. Pbrks (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that thank you! Youngdrake (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers free weekend

They have a free weekend, and I'm clipping anime and video game articles. Once clipped, any newspaper article can be viewed for free by anyone. If anyone has any requests I can clip articles. A lot of it is are ads, or very low quality coverage, but sometimes you hit gems like an Associated Press coverage of Princess Maker 2 of all things. Most modern newspapers should have online archives, so this is mostly for retro games. AP and UPI do have online archives, but I've found them far from complete.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful 2021 chapters on the Czech and Polish vg industries

For those brave enough to write articles on the larger industries (as opposed to individual games which has been my speciality): --Coin945 (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Roblox"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roblox#Splitting Proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Result was split. Panini!🥪 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternate names on templates

An editor has recently performed the following edit, removing a hatnote of sorts which spells out the systems' original name, the rationale being that this isn't adding any additional link to navigate to. if people want to know alternative names, they can click the link in the article. This followed a discussion over a similar change insisted for Template:Resident Evil. I should note that according to the NES template box's edit history, the hatnote has existed on the template for NES for several years without any objection from any other editors over a template's proper usage on Wikipedia, and that there does not appear to be any guideline or policy that I am aware of which provides guidance on whether alternate names which are used in parallel with the established common name should or should not be included on the nav box. Common sense aside, I don't believe a link must have a valid white link for it to warrant inclusion on a nav box under any circumstances? Haleth (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For me, this is common sense. These aren't articles, they're just templates to assist in navigating between articles. So why do we need a guideline to optimize the template for what they're designed to do?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sega Genesis/Mega Drive is a different circumstance because Mega Drive is the name in Europe as well (English-speaking) and not just in Japan. Famicom/NES and Biohazard/Resident Evil are circumstances when they are only known as those names in non-English speaking locations. That's why I didn't do that for those templates.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Famicom was sold as Famicom in several non-Japanese speaking countries, at least a few where English is indeed widely spoken as a second language, the Philippines being one example. The "Biohazard" name or brand has been used and continues to be used in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. English is certainly spoken by a significant portion of the population in Hong Kong, for example. Again, this is the American or European perspective dictating content I was referring to when I protested. Haleth (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote in the Resident Evil discussion, I'm in favor of keeping templates simple. They're for navigation, not information.
Let's just the terms used in the articles themselves, which derive from the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I could maybe imagine exceptions in circumstances where multiple names are so commonly used in the English-speaking world (this is the English Wikipedia) that only using one may cause confusion, but NES/Famicom isn't that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Things like this are explained in articles. And are generally explained there to a degree that borders excessive. They don't belong on navigation templates too. Keep them simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic. I would personally like to see alternate names in navbox headers, infobox headers and even page titles/headers. (In small font.) But imagine if NES had been released under a different name in each region, or in each and every country (even limiting to same language). We would have to list them all, thereby creating a huge mess! (And there are probably plenty of non-video game-related areas of the site where this issue crops up a lot more. For instance, Wikipedia got rid of the list of languages in the sidebar because there were so many.) ➧datumizer  ☎  00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've generally fallen on the side of keeping nav templates for navigation, not information. Let redirects do the work of sending people to the explanation of alternate names. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 6 to May 9)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

Bot came back, so there's 7 days compressed into 4. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

FT/GT opinion

Hi, I've got a problem. I've ended up nominating two topics at the same time (Fabula Nova Crystallis and Final Fantasy Type-0). I knew there might be work involved in getting them passed, but the scope of objections and requests are getting beyond my current Wikipedia allowance. My real world commitments aren't giving me the time or energy to address them with full adequacy, along with the slow-going/suspended GAs I've got at the moment (Dead Space music and Akitoshi Kawazu). Would it be better to close the topic noms down? If so, how do I do that? (Just to clarify, the points being raised within the topic noms are valid and need addressing, but combined with other Wiki projects and real-world commitments, I'm finding myself unable to invest energy to address them.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like on Type-0 they want trans-titles for the Japanese references, and on FNC/Type-0 they want a subcategory for FNC? I can handle that. (The other comment, that Oerba Yun Fang and Oerba Dia Vanille aren't in the FF13 topic, is separate from these topic noms and one that's easily solved by merging them back into Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series; I'll handle that too). --PresN 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Handled the trans-titles and the category, so you're up to 4 supports on the Type-0 GTC and no pending objections on the FNC FTC. I think they'll be fine. --PresN 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Formalizing "Virtual reality" as a platform

A couple weeks ago I asked if we should consider VR as its own platform within the infobox (as to deal with VR-only games) and there seemed to be agreement to do this so I'd like to formally seek this approach and make sure we have a right way to do it.

I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like. My initial ideas of this would be:

  • If the game only has official VR releases (no flatscreen), like Half-Life: Alyx, then its only platform should be "Virtual reality". Same with Astro Bot Rescue Mission. No "Windows" or "PS4", as this eliminates the issue of documenting the "base" OS of Oculus. The first release on any VR platform should be documented.
  • Otherwise, if there is a VR release option alongside flatscreen, like No Man's Sky, then it's just a platform to be documented like any other.
  • This logic also applies to release dates.

The lede/body can get into the details of specific releases on which VR models got a release first /etc.

My only concern is how this looks for a case like Astro Bot. Simplificaton is good but that approach clearly cuts out the indication its a PS-system only game in the infobox. But if I understand the present market, there's basically three ways to break out how VR units work, being on PS, on PC/Windows, and standalone (Oculus). Would it make sense at the present time to treat VR as three possible platforms - VR-PC, VR-PS, and VR-standalone then? We could then say, for infobox purposes, that Alyx was "Virtual reality (Windows)", Astro Bot "Virtual reality (PlayStation)" and No Man's Sky "Virtual reality (Windows, PlayStation, standalone)" as the platform. Or alternatively, only when the game is exclusive to one type of headset do we need to make that indication, and when it is available on multiple types of headsets, just call it "Virtual reality" like for No Man's Sky? --Masem (t) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding: I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like.
You and other people have thought about this way more than me, but could you explain the logic of this approach?
I don't get the logic of making VR its own "platform". This to me makes as much sense as making "handheld" a platform. We use the "platform" field to describe the systems that run the game, right? Why muddy that?
My first impulse - again, without having thought about this that much - is to continue to list the hardware/system that's actually running the game and treat VR as essentially an external peripheral, like a lightgun. So the Alyx platforms would be Windows and Linux, since those systems are running the game, not VR. For games that run on Oculus Quest (a standalone system that doesn't require connection to consoles or PCs), we can list Oculus Quest as the platform, since the Quest itself is running it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It is trying to deal with the issue of Oculus, but further that VR games are genuinely considered as a new "platform" like the difference between arcade and console games. Awards have separate categories for VR titles. Industry economic reports group VR differently from most other computer games, etc. There's enough indication that while on a technical basis we can classify most VR games by their underlying OS, that everyone else treat VR itself as a base platform, and at least in the infobox we should be giving that indicator somehow for a game that supports VR. Half-Life: Alyx's infobox alone does not at all indicate it is a VR game yet it is the killer app for VR and we're missing this somehow. --Masem (t) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. So, ^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. I get the logic here but I'm very cautious to go along with it, because I think we're at risk of adding more confusion than clarity by introducing wildly inconsistent rules to our infobox fields. Popcornfud (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Which is why I want to be careful how we introduce it and set rules for it, just as we were careful when we considered Stadia as a platform after routinely not adding other streaming platforms. --Masem (t) 15:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't part of the Stadia discussion - is there a good place to see what the logic/rules were around that? Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The primary reason was that it included exclusives that couldn't be played on other platforms. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
So if something has exclusives it is a platform? Interesting. ➧datumizer  ☎  23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's not so much about that, as it would be kind of weird to have games without a platform in the infobox (or at least without a valid entry on the "platform" field of inboxes.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think VR should be treated as a platform. If anything, it's a whole different paradigm that doesn't have any past analogies. The only unambiguously separate characteristic is that you need a headset. But it may or may not need specific hardware, like PC or console or phone or being stand-alone. The game may or may not need specific platform like Windows or whatever console or handheld. The games may or may not support any combination of OS, hardware, and headset. And that's not mentioning tracking (if any) or controller (if any) or modes (room-scale, seated, etc.) compatibility. There are just too many variables that I don't think this will ever fit with the existing schemes, especially since existing schemes are still applicable with both VR and non-VR modes. I would go as far as to say that VR games should have infobox VR fields where things like headsets and such are described in some ways that you are already thinking about. It's certainly a headache-inducing question. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The thing that stands out is that right now for a VR-only game, our current approach on the infobox does not make it clear that a VR-only game is actually VR unless editors misuse parameters like on Astro Bot right now. An arcade game is clearly indicated, and as long as one is familiar with home vs handheld, one can clearly make the distinction of those platforms. With VR, we don't yet have the type of ecosystem where every headset is its own platform (some are, like Oculus), but going down the line that each supported headset is mentioned as a platform almost is like the early days of personal computer games ala Lemmings where there would become dozens of platforms listed. I would strongly advise against the addition of a separate parameter to indicate a VR game as we have recently removed parameters tied to arcade games for the same reason. But I think we can indicate VR in a minimally intrusive way. --Masem (t) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I support it being added in some capacity. Otherwise we're going to have games without a platform in certain circumstances, like with Stadia before we made changes with that. Sergecross73 msg me 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a review from Game Informer Issue 115 (November 2002)

Hey, I'm working to improve Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, a stub article with barely any content. According to my research, there should be a review of the game in Issue 115 of Game Informer (November 2002), but sadly I can't find an online copy. If anyone has a copy of this issue, the review would be greatly appreciated. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to find Game Informer's review online either, so I hope someone'll help out! In the meantime, I found a review in Total Advance (owned by Paragon Publishing) for you [3]. There's also a coverage of the game in 4Players's sister website [4]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast for those finds - thank you so much! That should get the article to at least five reviews (I have reviews from IGN and GameZone, plus the GI one) which is quite respectable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: It's only brief, but you can find the full review on the bottom left here, written by Matt Helgeson. Looks like somebody uploaded the full issue to Imgur (though the images appear out of order to me). – Rhain ☔ 23:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, Rhain that's exactly what I needed! Didn't expect it to be long but it's more than enough. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05:I'll also help you, not with reviews but uploading a gameplay screenshot for the page. I'm busy with college stuff but it's the least i can do to help! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @KGRAMR:! I should have the prose done in my sandbox very soon so that would be great once I shift everything over to the main page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05:Cool! ping me once you move your work into the page's artcile to upload the screenshot. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
KGRAMR ready to rumble! I ordered the manual off eBay (couldn't find a scan), which should cover the two citation needed tag.Toa Nidhiki05 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey

Hey all! I'm drafting up another survey. To not be annoying, this might be my last one for a while. The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If I have not reached out to you on your talk page and you would like to participate and make your voice heard, please leave a response on my talk page. Thank you! Panini!🥪 02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive character lists

These two articles, List of Kirby characters and Characters in the Mario franchise, have been poor quality for at least a decade. They both cover dozens, if not hundreds, of characters in superficial detail. When we have character lists as big as these, would it help to denote some sort of guideline aside from notability that can help cull and get these articles under control? In other words, where could someone start if they wanted to improve this article, and how can we make it easier? I guess these questions are extremely broad, but I wanted to get some attention to this, as it's definitely not limited to just these two articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

At the Sonic list, which by no means is a great article, we created inclusion criteria like having multiple playable appearances or something to that capacity. It's culled out some of the minor one-off characters at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Sergecross's suggestion makes a lot of sense, and would apply in these two cases, if not more generally. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to making Serge's suggestion a MOS-type of guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Ferret and I recently enforced a similar guideline at Talk:List of Roblox games. Panini!🥪 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This is WP:LISTCRITERIA for those looking for a guideline to quote. Makes total sense in these two cases. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 10 to May 16)

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 v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16


  • Not sure if hoaxes or just being waaay too preemptive since most appears as redirects to an untitled Sonic game, which is something we know Sega is working on, but it 1) unnecessary to have an article for and 2) completely wrong to create a bunch of possible redirects from all possible Sonic series on the presumption one of these could be it. --Masem (t) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know, one of the the same IPs created a Super Luigi Galaxy 3 draft too, which really pushes the limits of my good faith interpretations. But that aside, what you said is exactly why I started deleting a bunch of the drafts I came across - real of fakes, there's no point in having a Sonic Generations 2 draft when there's literally nothing known about the subject. We're not in such a rush that an empty draft that says "Sonic Generations 2 is a video game" is particularly helping anyone out. (The ones I deleted were actual drafts, not just redirects.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Quick and easy vandalism is one thing, but I'll never understand how people can take the time to create extremely obvious hoaxes that would be reverted on sight instead of improving existing articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Kinda gave up tracking them, but this reminds me of our old LTA User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Book citations

I'm nearing the completion of the FAC of Paper Mario, finally. The article cites this book for the 2020 sales of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, but I'm unsure which pages say so. Does anyone have this book to confirm the pages, or is there an alternative link to finding so? I'm no good with book citations... Panini!🥪 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't have the book but here is the very detailed ToC. If you know which chapter your numbers are from, you know approximately where to look. IceWelder [✉] 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Particularly in the day of ebooks where there is no effective pages, citing the chapter is appropriate. WP:V wants enough "narrowing" of the source so that you're giving the reader a reasonable location to search through, and instead of a 400-600 page book, a 20-30 page range in a chapter is fine for this. --Masem (t) 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reached out to User:Roadrunnerto‎. They're the one that implemented the CESA citations into the List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS video games and List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games, so I assume they hopefully have an answer to what chapter it can be found in. Panini!🥪 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You can see the table of contents for the CESA white papers at [5] and from there you can see that the chapter is Chapter 10 - Research Materials, specifically pages 182-223. --Roadrunnerto 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Roadrunnerto, Thank you! I have another CESA question for you that I hope you have the answer to, then that should be it for me; the List of best-selling Nintendo 64 video games also has a CESA reference but it's very vague. By any chance do you know if it's referring to the same or another book? If so, what is its ISBN number? Panini!🥪 01:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, every year CESA (Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association) releases a White Paper that explores trends in the Japanese video game market. What we are most interested in is that CESA gets the raw sales data from companies who opt in, where Nintendo happens to be the largest who contribute. This has the effect of allowing us to obtain the sales data of all Nintendo game. Since these white papers are a yearly publication, usually released in the June-August period, and they have the data from December in the previous year. i.e. The CESA White Papers 2020, have the sales data for Nintendo Switch up until December 31, 2019. To answer your question, the last CESA White Paper to contain NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, GB, GBA, and DS games was the CESA White Papers 2015, i.e. up to December 31, 2014. The WiiU, Switch, and 3DS are still being updated, and are in the CESA White Papers 2020. You can find the ISBN for these books at [6]. It is important to also note that Nintendo also updates the top 10 selling games for Wii, WiiU, Switch, DS and 3DS quarterly here [7]. If you want an easy to find list of Nintendo Games and their sales data look here [8]. Most of the historical data is sourced from the CESA White Papers. Please note that there are no easy to find references on this page, so if the listing is not updated as of December 31, then take it with caution. It is especially important to note that the most recent figures for a majority of the Switch games are taken from an insiders data, and are not official sales figures (the sources from June 2020). I have fully updated this page [9] with all OFFICIAL sales figures, so if the number is different to this, then it is an insiders figure and is not to be sourced on wikipedia. --Roadrunnerto 02:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The citation as it currently stands, if it helps at all: "CESA Games White Papers. Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association." Panini!🥪 01:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Neo Geo GAs

Hi. As a small project, I've been expanding the article for Ogre Battle Gaiden: Prince of Zenobia for the Neo Geo Pocket Color. I haven't really seen any GAs, let alone anything above that, of titles for that console. Since I'm considering taking Prince of Zenobia to GAN in the future once things are less hectic, I was wondering if there were any examples I could find for comparison given the console's unique sourcing problems. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:Hmmm... The only examples I could think of are Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure and Never 7: The End of Infinity. Roberth Martinez (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@KGRAMR: Never 7 isn't really applicable since it's multiplatform and emerged on a more powerful system. Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure seems like the best comparison for structure reference and such since it was created for the NGPC. It's also recent enough that it's closer to modern GA standards than many earlier articles might be. Thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

A redirect relevant to this Wikiproject has been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#Nascar racing. Interested users are invited to participate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Who cares about Game & Wario? Honestly.

I'm doing a sweep-through of the WarioWare series. Why? Good question. How should I rewrite the gameplay section of Game & Wario? Simply explain that there are twelve or should I list them out and explain them, like Nintendo Land? Panini!🥪 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: you could follow Kirby Super Star's format. try you're best to reduce the gameplay to a few sentences each game mode and not to have a full-length paragraph.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Back with more citation requests for a Bionicle game

Thanks again to everyone here for the help on Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, which is now no longer a stub page and has a robust review section now. I have one more game I'm working on for the Bionicle series - Bionicle (2003), aka Bionicle: The Game. I've found a good number of reliable online sources (including from IGN, GameSpot, GameZone, and Game Informer), but there are a slew of highly-reliable magazine reviews I can't find online. I'm looking for any of the following issues, which should contain reviews for the game:

  • Nintendo Power (December 2003, GBA Version of the game - unknown page)
  • Nintendo Power (January 2004, console version of the game - page 159)
  • Official Xbox Magazine (January 2004, page 63)
  • PC Gamer (February 2004, page 77)
  • PSM Magazine (Holiday 2003, page 46)
  • Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine (December 2003, page 152)
  • GameNow (November or December 2003)

The first Nintendo Power one is particularly important, as the GBA version of this game (which is genuinely one of the worst games I've ever played) received practically no attention from reliable sources. As far as I can tell, it's the only review from an RS of the game. Any variety of the rest would be helpful as well as well as any other reviews that can be found - these are just the issues that I know have reviews of the game. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's the OXM review. Also found this scan of an issue of Lego Magazine, which includes a little piece from the game devs. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I found reviews of the game in two other magazines: Xbox Nation [10] and Cube (magazine) [11]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks so much to both! Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Internet Archive fundraiser

The Internet Archive has scheduled a fundraiser for their software collection. The virtual event, Game Not Over! A Fireside Chat With John Carmack, is scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 9:00 PM – 10:30 PM EDT. It is a panel with John Carmack, Jason Scott, Garry Kitchen, and others discussing game history preservation and the Internet Archive's role in it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VG/S discussions in need of views

Two discussions at WT:VG/S need more opinions. The first is about GameRant, a widely used source currently listed as Unreliable following 3 rather lightly attended discussions in distant past. The second is about Dotesports, currently listed as reliable but recently rejected during a FAC source review of League of Legends. -- ferret (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Can two characters with the same identity be together?

While researching interviews and reviews, I was surprised by how much content does the character Chiaki Nanami from Danganronpa has. Popularity, creation, voice actress, a full analsys about how her role in the anime sequel is so important among others. However, there is something that is revealed in the finale that completely changes how to adress the character. In the finale of the series, it is revealed there were two Chiakis in a similar form to Enter the Matrix twists but here there is one real (the one from the anime) while the first one (the one from the game) was instead an AI completely identical to her. I'm not confident I can can bring one alone an article but I was confused with other fictional characters like Sub-Zero from Mortal Kombat or Trunks from Dragon Ball who have multiple incarnations. Linking User:Haleth since he also has experience with writing characters.Tintor2 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say go back to the sources and see whether the characters in question are conceived together or discussed together as a pair by the author(s) in the sources. Alexios and Kassandra is a good example. Unlike most player avatar characters, they are not meant to be gender-swapped versions of the same individual (e.g. Commander Shepard or Revan), but are siblings (and not twins at that). Each character takes on a distinct personality (one becomes the protagonist, the other becomes a major villain) which is dependent on the role they end up playing within the narrative according to the player's choice at the start. The sources almost always end up discussing them together. What I've discovered is that reception is where the weight in coverage between incarnations often diverges; you'll find that one way or another, commentators do form a consensus where one incarnation is preferred over the other(s). On the balance, I don't find that coverage between the two siblings, and the in-universe roles they play, is distinct enough to necessitate separate articles for each. Sub-Zero is not unlike the comic book oriented articles which discuss superhero characters with different identities in the same article, and the reason why both incarnations of Trunks share the same article is because the present-day Trunks doesn't get enough coverage on his own. Haleth (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course you can. In this scenario I doubt they'd have much in the way of coverage independent of one another anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Even if there was enough to make separate articles for The two of them they still doesn’t mean Rhee couldn’t be mentioned together. For example, all of the major charters they have taken on the mental of the comic book villain Green Goblin are mentioned on the main article despite the fact that most of them are independently notable from that persona and have their own articles.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This is basically what the writer from the franchise says about Chiaki Nanami's incarnation from the anime: "Nanami both is and isn’t the same person from the game… I was careful to balance that. Her influence continues beyond hope and despair in the narrative, allowing Hinata to take down Enoshima. In that moment, the hope she leaves behind surpasses despair, but I’m glad that I wrote her in as existing since the early days of Zetsubou-hen. By the way, you could say that her initial meeting with Hinata in Zetsubou-hen episode 1 was the moment when everyone’s fate changed, but there are many such fateful meetings in Zetsubou-hen."Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That's some fine commentary for a hypothetical Chiaki article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Created Chiaki Nanami. I think the length is enough based on the weight of sources. The thing that seems a bit hard to find from my experience is commentary by the English actors.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Edge and PC Gamer have vanished from Internet Archive

Something's screwy with the Internet Archive lately, as almost all of the Edge magazines have vanished from the page in the link shown here. Same goes for the PC Gamer page, as almost all of the PC Gamer magazines have vanished as well! This has been going on for a week or two! Is the Internet Archive under a curse or something? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be very well that they are being pulled for copyright issues. That is a limitation about archive.org is that the legality of its magazine archive is not clear and DMCA claims are required to be enforced. --Masem (t) 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Lots of Edge, PC Gamer (US), and PC Gamer (UK) issues are available at OldGameMags.net. You need to create an account and pay a one-time donation for access (currently $20 USD minimum), but after that you have access forever. There's also RetroCDN which is free, but only has Edge. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Or, you could also search the Edge issues at IA in this manner for example: Edge UK 001. Remember that there might be some d***heads out there that enforces those draconian DMCA claims, "acting" as part of the magazine's publishing label to get rid of them online in order to avoid having their collection decrease in value. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Oculus Quest and Oculus Quest 2

Opinions needed here: Talk:Oculus_Quest#Merge_with_Oculus_Quest_2 Popcornfud (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 17 to May 23)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

May 17

  • None

May 18

May 19

May 20

May 21

May 22

May 23

Minor bugfix- we've had a lot of articles recently that were untagged redirects, that get un-redirected, and then get tagged a couple weeks later. Since things show up in this report when they're tagged but redirects were only "counted" if they were within the given week, they were being treated like old articles that were newly tagged, not new articles. As part of fixing this, the script will now say if the un-redirection took place more than 14 days ago, just like it does for page creations. --PresN 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kinda confusing, but helpful as usual. Panini!🥪 23:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Seeing lots of new character articles recently... I don't like to invest my WP time in articles for fictional things/characters nowadays, and I won't take them AFD personally, but I do wonder if relatively minor (if recurring) characters like Pearl Fey actually meet the GNG.--AlexandraIDV 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Alexandra IDV, just checked and the vast majority (if not all) of the citations on Pearl Fey's page are simply passive mentions of the character, which fail WP:N. We as a Wikiproject ought to be as strict on character articles as we are for games.

"WP:ROSE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ROSE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#WP:ROSE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Banjo-Tooie sales figures

Hi, I wanna figure out what's up with a certain discrepancy. The Wikipedia article for Banjo-Tooie lists the sales at approx. 3 million, while an old edit of the list of this article lists it at 1.49 million. I think it should be the latter; the former is cited to a developer interview, while the latter is cited to "CESA Games White Papers. Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association". Though, a big problem of course is that one source can be verified through the Internet archive, while I cannot be sure that the other source says what it says since it's a print source. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Speculating, but CESA is a Japanese organization, so those lower numbers might have been for Japan only. What's unfortunate is that CESA Games White Papers is an annual publication, and the citation doesn't specify what year's edition is meant, so it could be difficult to check.--AlexandraIDV 18:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The citation in List of best-selling Nintendo 64 video games originally matched the parent article, 3 million sourced to the interview. That list was stable and nearly unchanged for a remarkable amount of time, though I guess being that it was about N64 that makes sense. The list was completely rebuilt in 2017, which is when the figure changed and was sourced to CESA. This was done by @Andre666:. Perhaps they can provide some more information. -- ferret (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Abryn, I had a citing issue with CESA just a little while ago with Paper Mario. Check out the "Book citations" comments above as I think you might find something there hopefully. If I'm correct, CESA 2014 was the last book to contain sales for the Nintendo 64, linked above in the section I mentioned. Panini!🥪 11:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario TFA

Paper Mario is at TFA here. Would like to hear some comments on prose, as it was difficult to fit this entire article into a 1,000 character blurb so it might be a bit icky. Panini!🥪 11:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Review thread: The Continuing Adventures

Its about time we had another one of these:

FACs
Peer Reviews
GANs

GamerPro64 01:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Axel and a copyeditor recently edited Judgment so I think there might not be major issues in regards to its prose if somebody wants to review it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Proper tense in Gameplay sections for articles about now-defunct games?

Hey there. I just updated the iSketch article lead to note that the game no longer functions due to Adobe Shockwave having been EOL'd in 2019, and the site never being updated to work in some other format. As a result, the lead now reads "iSketch was a game...". My question is whether the Gameplay section should be updated to also read in past-tense or should remain in present-tense. (E.g. "Players were given several drawing tools", vs. "Players are given several drawing tools".) What's the consensus for that? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it should still be described in present tense, since digital games can almost always be played in some manner, such as using emulation. Saying "is a defunct game" is probably a better way to put it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Given the number of efforts to preserve Flash games, I definitely would keep iSketch in present tense. The only time past tense should be used is if we're talking a game fully dependent on a server structure that the servers absolutely are no longer there (eg: Battleborn). --Masem (t) 00:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Masem, Would a similar case be Super Mario Bros. 35? Tensing was confusing me on this one. Panini!🥪 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Arguably yes. While there's some efforts to emulate the Switch, I'd assume the SMB35 server arch is gone so even if the game could get working again on an emu, the lack of server would prevent play ( I believe). --Masem (t) 01:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pac-Man split-screen section in its article

Hey again. I just wanted to ask what, if any, consensus we have on the topic of the Pac-Man split-screen (kill screen), in terms of including any discussion about it in that article. It had been a prominent part of the article for years, but it looks like it was summarily removed in this edit last year and wasn't contested.

I believe rather strongly that a section on this glitch is important to Pac-Man specifically because (a) it's the most famous and well-known kill screen in gaming history, (b) other games and pop-culture media have specifically referenced this (including an entire official mobile game based on it), and (c) it was one of several prominent game-breaking bugs that directly led to changes in how games were developed, and more generally the software development process itself. Also, it's not really possible to sensibly talk about perfect scores without at least briefly mentioning why it's impossible to pass the "last" level in the game.

I think Namcokid's good-faith removal of that section was based on both a lack of good sources and some wording issues, and likely rooted in WP:TRIVIA as well. I'm fine with that, and I agree that the wording that was there as of when the section was taken out could have used some improvement. But I do think we should put it back. What do you all think?

I'm watching both this page and Talk:Pac-Man, where I have a topic there as well. Either place is fine with me for discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it would be off limits if sourcing exists...but the sourcing in that dif is pretty awful, so they were right to remove that version of it. Half was unsourced, and a good portion was sourced to "donhodges.com" - I don't know who that is, but it almost certainly isn't the reliably third party sourcing we need in such a mainstream, important article like this. I'm all for mentioning it, but only if you completely re-do it with better sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Don Hodges is the person who wrote "The Pac-Man Dossier", which included deep technical explanations of the ghost AI behaviors, the split-screen glitch, details about memory maps, graphics tables, constants, program flow, etc.. At one point, it also contained a complete disassembly of the game code, though later on that section disappeared, probably because Namco filed a cease-and-desist against him for that. I think years ago, we decided he was a reliable source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

Hi all. If you show some interest in the "flight sim" category of video games, you may want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for new correct title for article on a game whose development has ceased?

We have a page: Descent (upcoming video game), which covers the title originally named Descent: Underground. This game was intended to be released in 2018 as a "reboot" and prequel to the original 1995 game, but the studio ceased development in 2019, and the publisher for the game sued them in 2020. We're not privy to the legal details, but all indications are that the project is officially dead, so the game itself is no longer "upcoming", and the page should be renamed to something more appropriate. (I've already updated the page with these details and changed details on its status and development into past tense appropriately.)

What complicates this is that there is already a disambiguation article (Descent) and an article on the original 1995 game (Descent (1995 video game)), so the new page should be renamed with care. I was going to move it to "Descent (canceled video game)", but I believe this makes for some confusion with the original game, and since the game wasn't released (at all, let alone on schedule), putting a year in the title doesn't make much sense to me. What do you suggest? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"Canceled video game" sounds about right to me. It can't be confused with the original, because the original was not canceled.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
While most of our GAs on cancelled games are just the name or "(video game)", we do have Fortress (cancelled video game) as a precedent. I think it's not confusing for there to be a 1995 game and a cancelled game. --PresN 23:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll take care of it, then. Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to make sure, our RSes all assume the game is cancelled due to these events, right? --Masem (t) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we should only called it cancelled if reliable sources also say that. As an alternative, maybe "unreleased" would work. Popcornfud (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just curious I found this RPS article from Sept 2020 that has Little Orbit (the publisher) saying the game's still coming, but given that its clearly not going to be from Descedent Studios, it might be a wholly new game (eg the Prey 2 to Prey (2016) type situation), so this would still be reasonable for the time being until we have a better picture. --Masem (t) 16:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

Lead image for Fictional Characters

I just noticed two images competing for the lead image for Princess Peach, File:Peach (Super Mario 3D World).png and File:Princess Peach Stock Art.png. Is there any preference towards one or the other? I just noticed that Bowser had his replaced as well. Is there any guidelines on this? (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally have slight preference for the newer option, since slightly more recent and the characters seem to be more in pose but honestly they are very similiar to begin with really. No significant change in appearance for those characters between 2013 and 2021.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
If this was a debate I'd argue for the second picture as well, more iconic pose and more natural skin tone. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 24 to May 30)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

May 24

May 25

May 26

May 27

May 28

May 29

May 30

Beyond Blue

More comments at Talk:Beyond Blue (disambiguation) would be appreciated for an ongoing debate regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In contention are the articles for the 21-year-old organisation Beyond Blue, and the one for the 2020 video game Beyond Blue (video game). Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional image for a recently-promoted FA

Hello. An article I nominated at FAC in April, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, was promoted to FA status beginning of this week. However, this was slightly earlier than I had anticipated as I had been contemplating the use of another image as the article contains very few (the cover art and two gameplay screenshots used in tandem). A potential image in consideration was another gameplay screenshot (although I wasn't sure about this due to there already being the aforementioned screenshots, and the fact that, being for a remaster, the Gameplay section focuses more on the original game's changes and links to said game for more infomation) or an advertisement graphic displaying the initial bundling of the remaster with Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (see examples here and here). Could I please get a consensus on whether an additional image would be deemed necessary for the article, particularly as it's now an FA?

I'm not very well-versed on the procedures for using new images, but I am aware that those falling under fair-use requires an exemplary rationale for FA's to warrant their inclusion. However, in this case, the article is already at FA, rather than there being a discussion on the rationale prose during an FAC review which is what I was hoping for. I don't know much about Wikimedia Commons either for free-licensed images, other than that they don't require a rationale for this reason. I've not found any images in the Commons for Modern Warfare Remastered, and I've been told an ad graphic would not be eligible to be uploaded there if it was the original ad and not a photo taken of the ad. @IceWelder: I was told you'd be able to tell me more about image rationale templates? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as it being an FA goes: doesn't matter. Once the review ends, it's over- it's your "responsibility" (socially, there's no actual requirement) to try to maintain the quality, but that's up to you what that means. Presumably, you want the article to be as good as possible, regardless of any stars on it.
As far as the image, though, there's a reason we usually limit game articles to a single fair-use gameplay screenshot: we try to minimize fair use images (grumblingly so sometimes, but that's the consensus for years and years now), and you need to justify why this image is so important as to warrant a second slot and also can't be described in text. "It was in a bundle with CoD:IW" pretty much covers your second option in a sentence, and you didn't give a justification for the gameplay image in your post above- "it looks a bit bare" isn't enough, sadly. --PresN 21:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The guidelines for non-free images are no different for FAs then any other article. Non-free images should be used sparingly and as necessary to illustrate a key point that cannot be explained through text alone. There is no hard line on how many images are OK because it depends for each article. The cutscene screenshots currently there are necessary because they do a much better job at illustrating the visual remaster changes than text could ever do. That's all fine and dandy. Now, with gameplay, usually one screenshot is permitted because getting a reader to understand video game gameplay through text without an image is pretty damn difficult. The questions is, do the cutscene screenshots adequately satisfy this need for a gameplay screenshot, or is a separate screenshot needed to complement the gameplay section? I don't know. Does gameplay during a battle look much different than what is currently shown?
Regarding free licenses: There are many levels and degrees of free licenses, but when an image is on Commons that generally means anyone can use it for any purpose without permission from the creator. Do you think Activision would ever publish screenshots, artwork, or any other materials with a free license? Meaning that people could then print on coffee mugs and t-shirts to sell legally without any repercussions? Hardly. They keep their images copyrighted, which is why we can't post them all over the place and must keep them low resolution. What you might find on Commons is images of voice actors, studio buildings, or real-life locations that are depicted in the game. Maybe search for that if you're looking to add more color to the article.
How do images become free, you might ask? By default, every photo you take these days is copyrighted to you for 90+ years. That means only you can use it as you wish, and if other people want to use it, they are limited in what they can do without your explicit permission. Even if you share the image on social media with your friends or whatever, you still hold the copyright for that image. Now, you may decide to release the image under a free license, because you don't care and it's for the "greater good" or whatever. To do that, you just have to say post the image somewhere and say "hey it's free" by citing a free license. Commons lets you do this. There are many degrees of free licenses that permit certain things and prohibit others, but generally, free licenses allow other people to use your image liberally, without your permission. There's more to image copyright when you get into older photos, the threshold of originality, etc. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
TarkusAB Thanks for the clarification. With regards to the changes between the existing screenshots (which to clarify are not cutscenes but in-game and unrestrictive) and combat scenes in other levels, during the latter it pretty much boils down to there being more detail on the screen; your gun is on show and there are additions to the heads-up display, such as waypoint markers on the centre compass, as well as an ammunition counter, grenade total, and other items/abilities available to use. Aside from that, as you're obviously in a battle scene, there's a lot more enemies/allies and effects like gunfire or explosions.
I've noticed one or two game articles where gameplay is displayed via the use of a GIF or WebM file clip; I presume the same rules still apply to those? I was thinking whether this might better illustrate the mentioned changes in the remaster, such as during a multiplayer match. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, an animated image is an image all the same. I think an animated image is fine to add, especially if it can show the HUD off, and something cool like aiming down the sight, or throwing a grenade, or the player getting hurt, or running, or something like that. If you're comfortable with GIMP or Photoshop, you could also combine the images in the development section into one file. I did this with File:REzero comparison.png, so I didn't have like 5 non-free images in the article. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Game Informer, June 1996 issue

In case anyone here has missed it, in the Resource Exchange, there is a request for pages of the June 1996 issue of Game Informer that may contain information useful for the writing of the Descent II article. FreeMediaKid! 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Start-class, Top-level articles in WP:VG

FYI, is the list: --Coin945 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  1. Game mechanics
  2. Gameplay

New Articles (May 31 to June 6)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

May 31

June 1

June 2

June 3

June 4

June 5

June 6

I created an article (Birdring) on June 1 that wasn't tagged here, not sure if its a bug or not. — Pbrks (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Bug in my script - one of the way it checks for page moves that don't show up in the 1.0 bot log (which happens all the time) is to see of the "created" title in that log matches what's actually displayed in the article, and I didn't think about the Lowercase template mucking with that. Will fix for next week. --PresN 13:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Splash Lake's cover art image File:Splash Lake Turbografx CD.jpg is a CD cover containing 2D copyrighted works but is tagged as 'own work' on Commons.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Then nominate it for deletion. Speedy probably doesn't apply because threshold of originality can be argued. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I nominated it for deletion on Commons. Should be gone in a few days to a week I believe. DocFreeman24 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I already replaced the soon-to-be-deleted image of Splash Lake with a prover cover art file... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

E3 time again

Even though it is virtual this year, we now have a concentrated period of new game announcements coming up this weekend. I would implore everyone that until there is more than an announcement/platform list/target release date for a new game, to avoid creating new articles for new games. Redirects to a series or developer page are just fine, however. It will be tempting to create game pages from big devs or existing series but having a stub sit around that just says its coming is not helpful. --Masem (t) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • To stress, this is not the state we want articles simply because something was announced - that's somethig that can be covered in the original game, for example --Masem (t) 20:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Best to keep an eye on that game since there’s are also rumours they it runs om the as of now unannounced Switch Pro and I wouldn’t be surprised if some people try to add that to the article.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Salted. Contact me if anyone has a real draft to submit for it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Certainly we will have an article on it in the future, but we need to get out of the habit these stubby articles that just say "a game was announced". --Masem (t) 00:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'll remove it as soon as someone writes a reasonable draft. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I redirected a similarly spelled article Mario + Rabbids: Sparks of Hope back to first games page. I believe that should be protected as well.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Shadow_the_Hedgehog#MOS:FIRST

Some outside input could be useful here. The issue is over whether it's necessary to explicitly call a cartoon black hedgehog "fictional" in the opening sentence. JOEBRO64 15:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Super Play magazine (all issues were removed from the Internet Archive)

So, i was researching reviews from Super Play magazine in regards to the lesser-talked about Super FX games. Imagine the shock i got knowing that all issues of Super Play were nuked from the website. The only thing left from its collection is a sigle issue: https://archive.org/details/superplaymagazine Hell! There's not even backups at retrocdn.net. AFAIK, the only places i know that host these issues are these three websites: https://retropdfs.wordpress.com/currently-available-collections/ , https://www.retromags.com/magazines/uk/super-play/ & http://www.outofprintarchive.com/catalogue/preliminaryreleases.html This really blows as a SNES fan... Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Given a similar issue with other retro mags on IA before, I think they've been forced to remove them since they arguably are copyright violations to have them like that. (Remember that users can freely contribute to that site alongside IA employees, so there could easily be violations). --Masem (t) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a good idea to make use of what is available while it is still there. 98.32.192.121 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling content of ongoing/living games

This diff at Sea of Thieves [12] caught my eye today and made me think about how or if we should document ongoing updates to so-called "living games", ones that have fallen into a cycle of releasing major content updates (not just a new map or hero) regularly over multiple years. I know from cases I edit, we have similar one sentence updates in No Man's Sky, to a simple one-two sentence update in Overwatch seasonal events, to extensive details per season of Fortnite Battle Royale, to very extensive prosified details in the various Destiny 2 content.

Obviously, step one to consider is verifiability. If a game's ongoing contents don't get noticed, we shouldn't spend much time with them in the first place, though often devs will have their patch notes as minimum documentation to use. But this would only reasonably allow for a sentence or so to summarize the update. But most popular living games will have multiple sources to discuss the new features, storylines, characters, etc. and so with that you can fairly reasonably expand that, but that should be within project scope. It should not be a change-log level, documenting meticulously. And of course, even if multiple sources document the updates, you don't have to go full bore (eg No Man's Sky).

But given that you can verify this, I don't think we want to discourage the inclusion of living game's expansions, as long as we are talking major steps/updates, and not a minor-minor patch. Eg at a level of a season/battle pass and not any lower, if the game has that type of system. However, editors should be aware if these updates start becoming trivial. For example, with all of the various Diablo III seasons, only a few of them probably need to be heralded as anything interesting like the change to the companion system in the latest one.

So I think we may want to make sure that living game updates are allowed, but only justifying in depth when the sourcing is present. Without that sourcing, that becomes naval gazing to avoid. --Masem (t) 02:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

To add, the goal is to avoid being a GAMEGUIDE, but at the same time, we generally like to document major DLC for games, of which this type of content falls into. --Masem (t) 02:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As long as we don't place too much emphasis on minor/non-notable updates, then I don't really see any issues with following the No Man's Sky formula. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is about release dates regarding video games and countries

Since PAL is no longer being used as most countries have converted or in the process of converting, shouldn't we change this to Europe etc.. because on Wikipedia Manual of Style, it states released in PAL? thankyou EzeeWiki (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

PAL region includes Australia, which is mostly what the abbreviation was used/useful for with respect to game releases since it lets us save a line in the infobox when relevant. Cf. WP:VG/DATE, which asks to list release dates for major English-speaking regions and the game's home region. These days, most games come out simultaneously worldwide or worldwide-except-Japan. I'm trying to think of a recent game that had a unique release date for Europe/PAL. At any rate, I don't know that it's a major issue. For older games when PAL was more prevalent, it's technically historically accurate. For newer games, I don't think it's a widespread issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It still happens (see Ys IX: Monstrum Nox), but you're right in that it's becoming rarer and rarer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Steam banners category?

A little assistance there please. I'm sorry for not coming here sooner. N. Harmonik (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following is copied from the talk page of the category which is now C1 deleted

This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because it is for video game cover art such as this or that. I did request that it be added to this template but have gotten no response. --N. Harmonik (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be deleted because it isn't a defining characteristic of anything that would appear in it: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. This isn't what categories are for. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It's for categorizing images, and where they are taken from is a defining characteristic that we track already for various platforms. The real issue is that you cannot simply make the category. The template has not been updated to support "Steam" as a platform and no consensus or request to do so has been made. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you haven't gotten a response to adding it to the template, you should wait before creating the category or trying to implement it on image pages. Generally, the project does not treat storefronts like Steam as a "platform", and while these images may have been taken from Steam originally, some googling finds the same image in use on other websites with no direct connection to Steam. For example, OpenCritic uses the same banners without mentioning Steam. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what specific category should images such as those be placed under? "Online store banners"? N. Harmonik (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If that is no platform, don't specify a platform. They don't need sub-categorized. -- ferret (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (June 7 to June 13)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 7

June 8

June 9

June 10

June 11

June 12

June 13

... We do lists of RPGs by...2 year intervals...? That's weird, right? Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It's weird. If you have to go less than 5 years, you should go to one. Also, they're all in tiny font sizes (which they wouldn't have to be if they didn't cram 9 columns in there and had sensible column widths, making even though least-informative row take up multiple lines of text) which is a no-no... also I pulled up the 2010-2011 page, and the first row links to the French WP article even though we have one here? And there's no refs anywhere? I'm getting the impression that no one "maintains" these lists, they're just fan magnets. --PresN 00:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
A list of RPG games makes sense, and I can understand that since the indie explosion they are going to be huge and require splitting, but in such a case, I guess chronological makes sense to avoid having to resort on alphabetical. But I think we need to apply the same terms that has been applied to the Nintendo Switch game list and should be applied across all game lists: the game must either have a clear blue-linked article (links to series' pages for confirmed games are fine), or there must be a third-party source to assert the game is coming out/has been released that is not a vendor page. No cross-wiki linking, etc. This would likely trim a lot of crap off these lists. --Masem (t) 02:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I could have sworn we discussed removing all of those "list of RPGs" pages years ago. They are badly formatted and maintained, not to mention we don't really have other genre-specific lists to at least give this something to stand by. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Easy lift: I think we can all agree that two-year lists is too granular and not supported by the length of the lists at present. Five- or ten-year lists are more appropriate.
Hard lift: I agree with Dissident that there's not a compelling reason to have a List of RPGs specifically. RPG is already an extremely disparate genre and practically every modern game has "RPG elements" of some kind. BTW List of tactical role-playing video games: 2020 to 2029 also exists and probably shouldn't? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
There is something to be said for how diffuse the term "RPG" now (like I see Monster Hunter on the list, which while it is a "role-playing game" of sorts, is the farthest from what I'd put on there). Unless there's a better way to curate them to the clear defining basic RPG frameworks, then yeah, we probably don't need those lists. --Masem (t) 15:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Dissident93 - Are you thinking of List of best-selling Japanese role-playing game franchises, which we worked on cleaning up and reworking years ago? Personally, I don't recall ever seeing these bi-yearly rpg lists or I probably would have proposed changing them earlier. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, no I specifically remember the list of RPG by year articles being the focus. But maybe we only discussed an AfD nom as a possibility and nobody actually started one. I really can't see who would actively support such a thing anyway, so I think it's finally time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Should we move toward redirecting/AFDing any of these? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Esports team season articles

I just saw this article tagged 2021 OpTic Chicago season. I get that it's a parallel to professional sports articles doing the same but is this level of coverage warranted (WP:DUE) based on the sources? At what point does it become "stats" cruft? There's a handful more of this type of article at Category:Call of Duty League seasons by team. I looked around to see if other games' esports leagues had similar article trees but I didn't find any, but that's not to say that they're not there. I only did a cursory search. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The season one should have enough coverage but any esports team season is absolutely WP:UNDUE; at least at this current time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging creator User:Brandon Downes. I'm hoping to get a larger discussion about this. I think a larger article like 2021 Call of Duty League season is more likely to be warranted based on the sources but individual season articles per-team might be a bit much. The details of a season can live at that team's article like OpTic Chicago. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
There are more induvial team seasons at Category:Overwatch League seasons by team (72 to be exact). If it's decided that these should not exist, it will take a bit time to reduce and transfer content from pages like 2019 San Francisco Shock season, 2019 Atlanta Reign season, 2019 Dallas Fuel season, 2019 Vancouver Titans season, and 2019 New York Excelsior season to the team's main article. — Pbrks (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow that's a ton of prose. Looking at an article like 2019 Atlanta Reign season, there's a lot of prose that reads like sports writing/editorial and play-by-play, rather than encyclopedic documentation. If you wrote all of that, Pbrks, you might have a future in sports coverage, but I don't necessarily think Wikipedia is the right outlet for it. Per WP:ROUTINE, even though there's a decent amount of sources, they don't necessarily amount to significant coverage that warrants DUE weight and a lot of it can be boiled down to a season record, roster changes, and one-off drama. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Metroid Dread

Just a quick heads up. Since Metroid Dread has been re-announced and will release this year, it's article should I think be delisted as a GA and treated as a new article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe split the two to keep the GA? (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Not enough meat to split imo. We should prioritise making articles as good as possible rather than keeping GA.
Look at this way - the future Dread article is gonna have a fantastic Development section. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, haha. That being said, everyone said I was crazy for believing in Metroid Dread all these years, and I finally get to prove them wrong!! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been bold and nominated for GAR. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
To note: consider the pre-E3 version of the article [13]. I agree that all that should likely be kept in the "2021 game" article unless there is clear evidence that all that 2006 stuff is 100% unrelated to the 2021 game. (Eg: that would be like the Prey 2 and Prey (2017 video game) situation where a split is appropriate.) --Masem (t) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The Prey 2/Prey (2017) comparison is apt. Definitely a wait-and-see to see if it warrants a split rather than a combined article. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
So in the Treehouse after the main presentation, they talked about the 2006 effort and this game. From Ars Tech: [14]:
"Longtime series producer Sakamoto Yoshio confirmed that Nintendo originally began work on a game called Metroid Dread 15 years ago, then paused its development and restarted it a second time before abandoning the idea. The "technology" was not up to snuff for the concept the developers had in mind: a game that features a constant "dread" chasing hero Samus Aran through an entirely new planet."
I would take that that this new "Dread" is wholly unrelated except by series and name to the 2006 Dread effort, and thus fits the Prey 2/Prey (2017) idea. That is, the current Dread article should likely go to Metroid Dread (cancelled game) and a new article created for Metroid Dread (2021 video game). That would avoid having to do the whole GAR facet outside of adding the pointer to the new Dread article (again, similar to what I did for the Prey articles) But that's my read. --Masem (t) 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I agree. I don't think it needs to be disambiguated. Metroid Dread's future should be assessed when reliable sources indicate that they're going to be treated as two distinct games rather than one. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I personally think the two are intrinsically related and should be treated as the same game. It seems that the basic concept of the game never changed, even though development of it was off and on. The developers also treat it as essentially the same game, so it's another case like Duke Nukem Forever where it should be combined in one article (though hopefully much better than the aforementioned title).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, Dread is still the same core game as it was before finally reaching its final state on the Switch. As explained by Sakamoto on a development video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afUI8nIrGgI), Dread entered development two times. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
We're putting the cart before the horse. If WP:DUE coverage warrants a split later, then split. If not, then leave it as is. Clearly it is not warranted yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
So a few more articles came out today, and particularly with this one IGN I think its better to keep it all as one, now. ""The reason that I actually met with [MercurySteam] was in the hopes that they'd be able to realize the concepts that I had for Metroid Dread," Sakamoto says. "I was sure that with their ability and their technical know-how, that they'd be able to make what was once a concept in actual reality. [...] In meeting with them, I got the sense that they were a team that I could work together with towards a singular concept and realize this goal that I had in mind for Metroid Dread." This and the others I skimmed all suggest that while this Dread is not the exact same Dread envisioned in 2006, it is sufficient the same types of ideas on paper that it should be considered the same game, just a really long hiberation period, and not the Prey 2/Prey (2017) situation of a game restarted completely anew. --Masem (t) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: On the theme of sources, a little more information's come up in two recent Japanese interviews. This interview with Famitsu explicitly confirms the continuity of Dread between its planned and current versions down to the concept, and specifically mentions the Nintendo DS as the planned target platform for the initial project. This Dengeki interview covers similar ground, but includes specific mention of the Dread project's inspirations. EDIT: Eurogamer interview features more info on the timing and status of the second prototype build mentioned in the video interview. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this all aligns with keeping one Dread article with the current (pre E3-announce) as a dev subsection to talk about the early iteration. This does mean that a GAR should be performed because of the required expansion. --Masem (t) 15:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Danganronpa franchise

The article Danganronpa previously discussed the three games and the spinoff created by Spike. Suddenly, an anon added every single light novel, manga and anime. What should the overview section be about. I'm not sure about it so I posted a discussion to rearrange it at Talk:Danganronpa#What should be in overview?. Please join in to see what can we do.Tintor2 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Of Covers and Screenshots

I told someone to please place the covers and/or screenshots they upload into their platform-specific categories and they want to know if there's a functional reason. N. Harmonik (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Categorization and the fact that Category:Video game covers and Category:Screenshots of video games honestly should be container categories. It also helps clean up a potential massive mess of files. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand why you/others want categories assigned to covers, that makes sense and perhaps I'll start doing that. What I don't understand is why you and (Oinkers42) edit the header of the non-free use rationale to add console information. That doesn't seem to have any functional impact to me and doing so would slow me down in addressing the backlog. So, that's what I was asking when you left a note on my talk page. Apologies for the lack of precision! DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@DocFreeman24: The extra parameter on the non-free use rationale template is what puts it in the right category- see before and after this edit to a file page, where the new "|Atari 2600" param puts the image in Category:Atari 2600 game covers. --PresN 16:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh interesting, thanks for explaining! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kazuya Mishima image

Due to Nintendo using Kazuya Mishima as Tekken character for Smash, there was a request in regards to changing his infobox image. I agreed since Smash primarily shows his most common appearance of a white gi in contrast to the older business-like outfit barely used in the Tekken series. However, there is another user who wants to use the Tekken image and I'm kinda lost about what should be proper image. See Talk:Kazuya Mishima#Can we change Kazuya's render to his Smash Ultimate one?. The article happens to be GA so I wonder if this is more important for these type of articles. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2:If Ryu and Terry have their Smash Ultimate renders as the main profile image then, why the heck Kazuya shouldn't have it on his page as well? Besides, that's also his most recent appearance aside from Tekken 7. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(went ahead and linked the articles to make this a little more convenient to use)--AlexandraIDV 07:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this Coin945, I think this is a great way to give ideas for people looking for something to work on. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wii series template

I found it weird that the Wii (video game series) did not have a template, instead being split among Template:Wii and Template:Wii U. I created one, but I want to see if everyone is fine with the split.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Looks good to me.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (June 14 to June 20)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 14

June 15

June 16

June 17

June 18

June 19

  • None

June 20

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_157&oldid=1137359383"