Talk:Kingdom Come: Deliverance/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for comment on Kotaku opinion piece

The following discussion 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.

---

Kotaku attributed the game's popularity to its claimed adherence to realism and its perpetuation of tropes consistent with white male power fantasies.

Should the above statement be in the article? The source is Grayson, Nathan. "Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics". Steamed. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• REMOVE racist bullshit. this is insulting and a steaming pile of racist horseshit. it's a 15 century central european historical RPG and the claim i like it becuase of some racist power fantasy is beyond insulting. it;s outright racist. i vote remove this racist garbage.Fustos (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But how do you really feel? I don't care if the article is included or not (and, for the record, did not add it in the first place, just tweaked the language in our article to more accurately reflect authorial intent), but you are really getting confused between "white power" and "male power fantasy." A male power fantasy appeals to the male instincts of dominance and sexual gratification. The article makes no real call on whether that is good or bad, it just calls it out as something that makes the game enjoyable for some. You are welcome to enjoy such games, I often do too! Difference is, I don't feel threatened if someone points out these elements exist. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • the article is not apolitical as you make it seem. and how do i really feel? i feal like i wrote. i don't have any backdoor agenda, unlike you with this dishonest question. Fustos (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Someone's sarcasm meter is broken. No, the article is not entirely free of the author's personal views, but it is making an attempt to be thoughtful. It points out that the sense of realism and immersion is probably the biggest draw and concedes that there is no overt racism. Just because he says that there are tropes does not mean he is panning the game over them. He does point to a certain level of what he feels is hypocrisy among the game's defenders, but he does not explicitly condemn white male power fantasy tropes. The article appears balanced, but you are certainly allowed to disagree with its conclusions. Wikipedia policy, however, is not governed by personal opinion. Indrian (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The fact that a statement has a source does not automatically mean that it belongs to Wikipedia and that removing it is vandalism. The fact that a source states that something attracts "male power fantasy" does not mean it is relevant for Wikipedia. Being a real-life soldier might attract "male power fantasy", but just the simple fact that a source exists that backs such statements, we don't go to the article of United States Army and insert "United States Army attracts male power fantasy". This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of political right-wing or left-wing views on a given topic: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Oh I quite agree with you. I think this whole thing is blown a bit out of proportion. I was just responding to the racism allegation, which was quite unfounded. If Grayson is the only one discussing male power fantasies and the game, it becomes a fringe theory requiring exceptional sourcing. If multiple sources are disussing it though, you don't get to remove it just because its distasteful to you. I'll leave it to others to track down additional sourcing if they care to, as I really can't be bothered with all this nonsense. I just wanted to make sure that if a source was being used that the article properly reflected its content. Indrian (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Kotaku was well placed in the "Sales" section and also original wording was better (before 30 April 2018). Appeal among conservative people (I hope I´m using the right term) is reflected in more sources, so there is no reason to remove this information. Pavlor (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Pavlor. The previous wording was the most neutral presentation of sourced reliable content. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Despite the fact that Fustos is not expressing his/her ideas in the healthiest of ways, adding extensive political analysis is against "Wikipedia:Advocacy", and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Every topic has a sourced political analysis in the internet, but that doesn't mean that every article here should have a political review here. The "racism" accusations and the response to them are notable, but as I explained, further political analysis (i.e. opinion) has no place in an encyclopedia: it is very explicitly stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: 2. Opinion pieces.--Concus Cretus (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The Kotaku bit, as it's currently worded, seems a bit out of place in the sales section, not to mention the unencyclopedic tone. That said, the original wording and placement pre 30 April would probably have been better. Also, the first paragraph of the controversies section doesn't exactly make sense with the removal of the polygon part (what accusations?) and should probably be reworded. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

what do you have in mind? Fustos (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The statement referenced by the Kotaku source in the pre-April 30 version was not what the source explicitly stated. The wording based the game's popularity/sales in alt-right groups and that is not in written in that source. The current wording is obviously biased so it can be deleted per WP:SOAP. The second statement from Unwinnable about context of Czech politics starting from "He believed" is also clearly politically biased so it also can be deleted per WP:SOAP. The rest is mostly fine.--Concus Cretus (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version is exactly what the source says: the author believes the popularity is due to realism, even though he thinks it’s not as realistic as its adherents claim, and the male fantasy tropes. If the source is used, then it must be accurately reflected. Now if you want to argue WP:FRINGE because other sources do not express the same viewpoint, go right ahead. Bias does not equal “opinions I don’t personally like.” I did not add the source and I personally think referencing its conclusions in the sales section is not helpful, but since others insist on citing it, we at least need to do so accurately. You do not get to distort its conclusions any more than your opponents do. Indrian (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you said.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I propose to keep at most Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales and popularity to its appeal among conservative and alt-right groups. So removing the part about Steam and SJW's. But better still would be to keep the political views of fans/customers confined to the controversies section. In a broader sense, i do agree that the article should be less about gamergate, SJW's, alt-right, racism, misoginy, hate speech, etc and more about the game. The controversies section could be trimmed further as far as I'm concerned, for example by removing the second half of the first paragraph and the third paragraph. While i definitely assume good faith on all sides (except the journalists), i do think that from a European perspective, the whole controversy about this game feels utterly contrived and encyclopedically irrelevant. And that's coming from a man who has many friends from ethnic minorities.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you except that the article did not actually attribute any of the game's sales and popularity to its conservative appeal. The article discusses the support it has received from alt-right accounts on Steam, but only discusses popularity in terms of realism and power fantasies. I do agree that any of this material should stay in controversies rather than sales, but if the Kotaku article is quoted about the alt-right, all we can really say is that there is evidence of support for the game among alt-right Steam users. The current version of the controversy section actually already does this, and should probably be the end of the matter. The statement "Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales and popularity to its appeal among conservative and alt-right groups," however, is false and not reflective of the source. Indrian (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, just Remove it.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove. Now that I have commented on half this thread, I suppose I should add my two cents. The controversy section already discusses the Kotaku article and its statements on the alt-right appropriately with the sentence "Kotaku observed that a portion of that game's player base rallied around it "because they see its all-white cast and its developer's support of Gamergate as a big middle finger to 'social justice warriors'"." This is all the article says about the alt-right. It does not say anything about sales being owed to alt-right support. To include that material is dishonest. The Kotaku article does theorize a bit about why the game has sold, but it comes to separate conclusions on that point. Unless other sources reach the same conclusion, we are looking at a WP:FRINGE situation. Generally speaking, Wikipedia video game articles do not try to divine why a game sold X number of copies outside of the success of elements found within the game such as game play, story, controls, bugginess, etc. I don't think attempting to do so here is particularly constructive. Indrian (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The current version

  "Kotaku observed that a portion of that game's player base rallied around it "because they see its all-white cast and its developer's support of Gamergate as a big middle finger to 'social justice warriors'""

is also not reflecting what is in the article says. "portion of that game's player base rallied" is a generalizing exaggeration of the actual statement "others have rallied around Kingdom Come" followed by seven examples. The article gives seven examples as a basis for the carefully worded "others have rallied" but seven people are not "portion of that game's player base" of over a million players, so translating the author's "others" into "portion of player base" is WP:OR. If Kotaku source is used, then what it says is

"Kotaku observed that several buyers (optional: seven) stated that they bought it due to what the author calls "SJW complaints" about the game."

Wordings like "game's player base" are weasel words inflating the actual findings of the author. Citing the part with "big middle finger" is emotionally charged and un-encyclopedic to be recited here.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. After dropping the Kotaku bit, the controversies section reads a lot better now. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 13:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For me, this shows how contrived the whole racism thing was, and also how this section was about digging up all the dirt we could possibly find that any journalist so much as hinted at. I'm sure that we can find, within the million people who bought the game, a few persons that bought it because they collect all computer games where you can ride a horse, or because they're into archery, or becauese they are fan of one of the voice actors, or whatever. Doesn't seem worth mentioning to me, even if a journalist bothers to mention it. Unless it's mentioned by a reliable source that this was a substantial contribution to the sales, significantly more than in the general demographic of people buying similar games. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Reliable source, relevant opinion. Don't see why it should be removed (sparing fan's feelings not a valid reason.) FYI: Sangdeboeuf I don't believe you've given your own opinion on the RFC.  PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove the speculative sentence, also vide WP:FRINGE. - Darwinek (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I feel that the bit would need more reliable sources. While Kotaku is itself a reliable source, just by itself, it gives too much weight to the reception section. Are there any other reliable sources that did report on it? Maybe with another angle to the story? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove / Keep Out Invited by the bot. This has a long list of problems. This isn't coverage of the topic; it's negative creative speculation what's in the heads of the people who play the game. And one using inflammatory and derisive wording at that. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove In case my comments above weren't clear, I also think this line should stay out of the article. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 21:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Closure

It seems the discussion has come to a point where no more views were added for over two weeks and a clear majority is for not including. Pavlor, Axem Titanium and Sangdeboeuf shall we close it ourselves without bothering an external editor/admin for it? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 16:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious consensus should be judged by uninvolved editor, not by one of us participating in this RfC. Procedures are important and help to prevent later disputes. Pavlor (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we let this run for a full 30 days, then begin closing discussion? It would seem that we are still split on this issue, and since we can't just count the votes, maybe we should get a few more editors to comment. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 12:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it's been well over 30 days now, and the RfC is no longer listed. We should find an uninvolved editor to help with closing this. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 21:28, 3 June 2018 (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.

Non-closer's note: Fish and karate's close was a vote count. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section

Because one american journalist made shitty comments about the supposed non diversity of the game, doesn't mean there were controversy. I didn't hear about it like majority of the gamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:E0B9:A851:F39F:15D4 (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)