Talk:Hardcoded (video game)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that two friends from high school that wanted to make a video game together decided to make Hardcoded, a game, together? Source: "Stargrifter and Royale started working on Hardcoded in 2017, but the two have wanted to develop a video game together since they met in high school." (Daily Dot)
  • ALT1:... that the creator of Hardcoded wanted to create a game that would appeal to cisgendered people with a futanari fetish and that would make being a girl seem like a real possibility to them? Source: "The initial concept for Hardcoded was to make a game which would invite that cis futa-fetish crowd, but then take their feelings seriously and make being a girl seem like a real possibility, if they’re interested." (Sidequest)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Awkwafina
• Comment: This is definitely one of the weird noms I've made. I prefer ALT1, but understand that it might not be the kind of content we'd want to see in the main page, so have another one in the main hook.

Created by Nomader (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I strongly prefer ALT1, and find the main hook boring, so the hook eligibility approval should be read as applying to ALT1 only. Wikipedia is not censored, you're not suggesting porn be placed on the main page, so IMO there's nothing wrong with ALT1. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but doesn't the source say that they wanted the game to appeal to those who were curious about being a girl, rather than make being a girl seem like a real possibility? Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Edited in-line prose and hook to match the source. Nomader (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nomader: thank you, but while the second footnote says what you're saying, the first footnote says: Plus, with this kind of game comes a sizeable cis audience, so maybe we can show them, like, trans people are real. I'm wondering if you could just leave off the end part:
• ALT1a: ... that the creator of Hardcoded wanted to create a game that would appeal to cisgendered people with a futanari fetish? Yoninah (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with this as an alternative! I think the extra part is just interesting flavor, this gets to the meat of what the hook was about. Nomader (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Restoring tick for ALT1a per Psiĥedelisto's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Released in 2018 - receiving updates

@Waxworker

The game was released in 2018 and reviewed by several publications. The fact that it is still receiving updates does not negate this fact. In fact, it could not receive updates if it was never released.

Example of reference saying game is released

Hardcoded, which was released in 2018 but is still receiving regular updates, is an open-world visual novel starring a cast of trans women.

https://www.wired.com/story/indie-lgbtq-games-sex/

Jonpatterns (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: The game is still being developed, and thus isn't released; Kotaku states that the game is "in development", and The Daily Dot says that it is "still in active development". There's a difference between a game in early access getting updates and a game that's done getting updates - updates for Hardcoded have been adding the main story. For example, the release date of Minecraft is given as 18 November 2011 - even though it was first publically available in 2009 - as that's when the end was added, coinciding with its 1.0 release. The latest version of Hardcoded is version number 0.0.82, and the main story isn't finished. Waxworker (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Waxworker A game still being developed does not mean it can not have already been released. The Minecraft article states "The game was first released to the public on 17 May 2009 as a developmental release on TIGSource forums." Wikipedia can not predict the future so how could it ever say a game has finished getting updates. Maybe it would be best specify what has been released and what the developers plan for the future. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns and Nomader: Pinging Nomader for their input, as they created the article. I'm not sure how WP:CRYSTAL applies here. I'm not saying that the game is considered 'unreleased' until it stops receiving updates, I'm saying that these updates are adding core parts of the game and the game is still in development, and sources have noted as such. In the case of Minecraft, the date it was first available is noted, but 2011 is given as the release date as that was when it came out of beta and released version 1.0. For Hardcoded, it could probably be noted under development/in lede that development builds of the game & a demo was released in 2018, but that shouldn't be considered the release date of the game, and I think it should still say 'upcoming' in lede and release date TBA in infobox. Waxworker (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: Thanks for the ping, Waxworker. I originally wrote it as "released", and I meant it in the same vein that Subnautica was "released" in early access -- but I don't think the prose I wrote made it clear then, and I actually prefer the version as it stands here a bit. It's still very much in active development. Maybe it's worth sourcing when it was originally released in an "alpha" state (or whatever the developer put it out as) in the infobox with the date? TBA feels a little misleading here though.

This honestly might be something to bring up for wider discussion at WT:VG. Nomader (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Maybe in the infobox under release date it could say 2018 (alpha), or 2018 (early access) ? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that makes sense to me! I'd go with early access -- because it's more broad and we don't want to get in the habit of more detailed milestone dates in the infobox, feels like detail creep to me. Nomader (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)