Talk:Omori (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 Kingsif (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after numerous delays, the video game Omori came out over five years after its initial projected release date? Source: "with an initial projected release date of May 2015... The game would be delayed into 2019 and early 2020, but would again miss both targets. Later in 2020, Omori received its final release date of December 25."; Comic Book Resources, SiliconEra

Improved to Good Article status by Mir Novov (talk). Self-nominated at 05:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC).

• ALT 1: ... that the video game Omori came out over five years after its initial projected release date? If it is late it must have been delayed, and shorter generally makes a better hook (ask my friend Gina, she's 4' 11' and also has a great uppercut) Belle (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, that sounds better. - Novov T C 07:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• ALT 2 ... that the video game Omori came out in December 2020, instead of its initial projected release date of May 2015? Variation of ALT1 as per below. - Novov T C 02:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and neutral. Earwig did not pick up anything major. Hook is interesting and I prefer ALT1 as it is more concise. However, the article does not mention that it came out over five years after the projected release date. Nominator has no prior DYK credits so exempt from QPQ. Pamzeis (talk) I am not watching this page so if you want my attention, please ping me. 02:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Does that have to be directly included? The article mentions both the initial release date and the eventual one. If that's the case, I suppose you could do something like ALT2 above. Although IIRC at least one source mentions the five-year duration, it seems redundant and silly to add that to the article just for DYK. - Novov T C 02:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DYK#Cited hooka: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article" (emphasis in original). I'm not sure if it has to be directly included but I think it might be able to be incorporated into the article e.g. "Later in 2020, Omori received its final release date of December 25, five years after its projected one" (or something like that). If you can find the source which mentions this, I'd be happy to tick it; however, if you can't, we'll just go with ALT2. Happy editing! Pamzeis (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: I can't find it, so just use ALT2. Some sources got removed as part of its GAN, so there's a good chance it got excised then. Thanks for your work. - Novov T C 09:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Great! Approving ALT2. Pamzeis (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of second note

In the second sentence of the article’s opening, the note after Sunny’s name says that ‘Sunny’ is merely the protagonist’s default name. However, Omocat themself also refers to the protagonist as Sunny, such as at 5:30, 5:40, 5:43, 10:56, and 11:06, in this stream titled “SUNNY’S BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION STREAM”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFj1IYGqQa0 Given this, I think the note should be removed as it could mislead readers into thinking Sunny’s name isn’t canon or isn’t universally accepted as the protagonist’s name. McDaMastR (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. Though I don't think it's hugely misleading, I think it's an incidental detail that doesn't really matter that much, just like let's say the volume controls. Our other JRPG articles such as Mother 3 and Final Fantasy VII don't list it for good reason. ― novov (t c) 07:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also support removing it, since it really isn't that important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Development

Omori was extremely infamous during its development for a lack of developer transparency, which caused fan outrage during development. The game's troubled Kickstarter campaign was characterized by a lack of developer communication, and frustration from fans who were often left in the dark for months on end.

This is, without a doubt, one of Omori's most noteworthy qualities, and I think something reflecting this should be added. I'm including a link to a YouTube video which documents this aspect of the game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjkEPo9P-OI

The video includes testimonials from various Kickstarter backers of the game, and provides independent research which provides context on the game's troubled development.

As I said: this is objectively one of the most well-known facts about the game's development, and it baffles me that something like this isn't already present in the article. Beaksmccoy (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beaksmccoy: YouTube is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source, we can add the information. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

https://cliqist.com/2016/02/03/2-years-200000-omori-kickstarter-communication-still-broken/

https://medium.com/super-jump/the-mysterious-allure-of-omori-e1c21bf3c130

https://indiegameculture.com/news/omori-dev-omocat-accused-of-worker-exploitation/

Hope this is enough Crockpure (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Crockpure: Medium is unreliable, and I couldn't find much indicators that the remaining two sources are up to reliable source standards. IGC's about page doesn't seem to show much professional journalism qualifications, and neither does Cliqist's. (Neither of them show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.) I think the material probably has to be removed, since it documents poorly sourced info about accusations towards living people (see Wikipedia's living people policy). ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Turns out Cliqist has been considered unreliable in a discussion. Sorry, but I don't think this sourcing is enough for the paragraph's inclusion, especially considering the biographies of living people policy. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)