Talk:LJN

Relationship with James Rolfe

I have a couple of problems with this section. First, it's poorly written: "James Rolfe chose many LJN game titles since it happened to be a label for many games he criticized" is basically saying The Angry video Game Nerd uses many LJN games because they produced what Mr. Rolfe considers to be bad games. That's a piece of trivia connecting LJN to AVGN, but beyond that it's not noteworthy.

Second, it's not noteworthy in the least. While Mr. Rolfe is "famous" by Internet standards, he's little more than a guy with a camera and some editing equipment. His critiques of these games come at a time when LJN no longer exists, and therefore have no impact whatsoever.

Finally, even if the above two criticisms are ignored, this section would be better suited in the Angry Video Game Nerd article, explaining why LJN is featured so prominently in many of "The Nerds" videos.

To be honest, I don't really care as much as this post might make it seem. It's just a small section. LordKaT (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think bringing up LJN's notoriously low quality games is noteworthy, but bringing up James Rolfe's relationship with the defunct publisher is not. This isn't noteworthy like Roger Ebert's review of North because as pointed out this was before Rolfe's time.--70.119.16.109 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Its all a non-issue. Rolfe/AVGN was deemed an unreliable source for reviews by the video games project, as his reviews are for purely entetainment purposes only. Regarding a review of an item from before the viewer's time, there is no such such qualification here or anywhere else I'm aware of. Film critics review movies from ages ago, its all relative to the notability of the reviewer. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I Fully agree with mentioning that LJN is notorious for making shitty games.Tommkin (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead there should be a "legacy" section, or a "reception" section that mentions the fact that LJN is widely remembered for producing lots of shovelware titles, which are widely regarded as awful. Then, the AVGN could be a source, instead of the focus of the section. The fact that this article makes no mention of the quality of these games, seems rather lacking in a historical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.100.97.55 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Instead, why not make a "Reputation" section and there put in the entire infamy LJN received due to not revealing the developers often and people's not acknowledging nor researching that they were just publishers, which has led to a "fad" where people says LJN makes shitty games or that LJN has become an icon of bad games often based on movies? 0.0.0.0 (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.126.66.51 (talk)

• I think that this approach could work. He is a noteworthy video game critic, and he frequently refers to LJN as being a hallmark of bad quality games. One example of his criticism is in his episode 112, where he not only criticises LJN, but nominates Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as possibly being the worst game that LJN ever made. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• We have in my opinion, a repetitive series of counter-productive edits from Nihlus, who seems determined to censor out the criticism section entirely. He likes to use the word 'consensus' a lot despite the fact he hasn't been using the talk section. I'm in agreement with several previous talk posts here regarding this dispute. It's highly irresponsible to flat out remove the criticism section on the page in it's entirety. It falls under censorship, and he is censoring the opinion of a critic (James Rolfe) he doesn't seem to like. I don't think critics have to be liked to be included; critics usually aren't liked. I think if Nihlus has a problem with that section, he should speak his mind here, and make constructive edits in the criticism section itself; rather than outright deleting it entirely: which I find to be extremely disturbing due to the aforemention topic of censorship here on wikipedia; which seems to be a problem in this particular instance. Furthermore, he has made commentary regarding the fact we need a conensus regarding the criticism. We seem to have a consensus already here on the talk page. Several posts before this one have correctly asserted, that a criticism section is absolutely fair play regarding this company due to the amount of controversy surrounding them. If someone has a problem with the criticism section, they need to quit deleting the section, and instead edit it so that it's more agreeable. Though personally, I think it's perfectly fine as written; though would like to see a few more sources and possibly other criticisms from other sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't have consensus from a conversation from over a year ago when multiple people are telling you right now to get a consensus for the inclusion of the new information. There is nothing special about James Rolfe or his opinion on LJN. Either gain consensus to add it, as you have been instructed to do multiple times at this point, or move on. Nihlus 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I filed a dispute resolution request for this. You can find it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LJN

Several other editors have made posts regarding this issue. I can copy and paste them if you wish but it shouldn't be necessary.

I will high-light this particular post from above, made by an unsigned user @ 187.126.66.51 :

"Perhaps instead there should be a "legacy" section, or a "reception" section that mentions the fact that LJN is widely remembered for producing lots of shovelware titles, which are widely regarded as awful. Then, the AVGN could be a source, instead of the focus of the section. The fact that this article makes no mention of the quality of these games, seems rather lacking in a historical sense." 

Several other posts make similar points. I do not believe you should be deleting the criticism section entirely. If you do not like it, edit it. And also, please refrain from telling me to move on. This is a community. No one person has the right to demand another stop participating in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk)

For about the sixth time, please read WP:BRD. The above discussion is essentially irrelevant as the comments are years old. As stated by many users, he is an entertainer and not a critic, and definitely not someone a whole section should be dedicated to. You seem to lack the understanding that the onus is on you to correct the information before restoring it or adding it back in. It is no one else's duty to fix it for you. Nihlus 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the comments were made. Especially, since no further discussion has taken place on the issue. I hate to say it Nihlus, but a consensus was reached. Four years ago. If you disagree with this, then you should show me where in the wiki-rules it says that earlier comments on a talk-page are null and void, due to the passage of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Typo

Fixed the LGN typo in the criticism paragraph... there's a picture of the LJN logo... how can there be a typo so huge, oh well... - SaberJ2X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.239.83 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LJN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220005011/http://www.vgrebirth.org/ to http://www.vgrebirth.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)