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)

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)

Sunny (character) merge discussion

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 result of this discussion was Draftify, per the request of the original author. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

---

While I realize the Sunny article was made just recently, even looking over the proposed articles there's not much of an indication why Sunny is separately notable from the game itself. Almost everything there is from a review of this game or observation of it, and not really much commentary on Sunny as a character himself separate enough of that context. Even several of the references as they're cited in the Sunny article are more about the game than him. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - I agree that the extant coverage doesn't really justify Sunny having his own article. The Appearances section is just a summation of Omori's plot with a greater focus on Sunny that is in the main article. ― novov (t c) 03:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Could this be moved to draft instead? I'd like to try again if and when more sources appear. Out of curiosity though, why are sources 6, 7, 14, 16 and this not enough? They all contain quite a bit of discussion of Sunny. SFreader1 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a subject to merit its own article. If the majority of articles touch on the character with respect to what they do within the plotline of the game, then the information is probably better suited to the main article about the game. All of those sources mentioned seem to describe generally the themes of the game, of which the character as a protagonist is of course fundamental but not really the focus. It's probably better to try to discuss on the main Omori article if a section on characters or themes would be due, and try to integrate the content there. CloakedFerret (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. In that case, can this be moved to draft? I'd like to try again in the future if and when better sources appear. SFreader1 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2024 (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.