Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Active discussions
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Formalizing "Virtual reality" as a platformEdit

A couple weeks ago I asked if we should consider VR as its own platform within the infobox (as to deal with VR-only games) and there seemed to be agreement to do this so I'd like to formally seek this approach and make sure we have a right way to do it.

I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like. My initial ideas of this would be:

  • If the game only has official VR releases (no flatscreen), like Half-Life: Alyx, then its only platform should be "Virtual reality". Same with Astro Bot Rescue Mission. No "Windows" or "PS4", as this eliminates the issue of documenting the "base" OS of Oculus. The first release on any VR platform should be documented.
  • Otherwise, if there is a VR release option alongside flatscreen, like No Man's Sky, then it's just a platform to be documented like any other.
  • This logic also applies to release dates.

The lede/body can get into the details of specific releases on which VR models got a release first /etc.

My only concern is how this looks for a case like Astro Bot. Simplificaton is good but that approach clearly cuts out the indication its a PS-system only game in the infobox. But if I understand the present market, there's basically three ways to break out how VR units work, being on PS, on PC/Windows, and standalone (Oculus). Would it make sense at the present time to treat VR as three possible platforms - VR-PC, VR-PS, and VR-standalone then? We could then say, for infobox purposes, that Alyx was "Virtual reality (Windows)", Astro Bot "Virtual reality (PlayStation)" and No Man's Sky "Virtual reality (Windows, PlayStation, standalone)" as the platform. Or alternatively, only when the game is exclusive to one type of headset do we need to make that indication, and when it is available on multiple types of headsets, just call it "Virtual reality" like for No Man's Sky? --Masem (t) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding: I am suggested that release on any VR device should be treated as a "virtual reality" platform, and for purposes of simplifying infobox, ignore the hardware issue of which system it was released for as this gets into storefronts and the like.
You and other people have thought about this way more than me, but could you explain the logic of this approach?
I don't get the logic of making VR its own "platform". This to me makes as much sense as making "handheld" a platform. We use the "platform" field to describe the systems that run the game, right? Why muddy that?
My first impulse - again, without having thought about this that much - is to continue to list the hardware/system that's actually running the game and treat VR as essentially an external peripheral, like a lightgun. So the Alyx platforms would be Windows and Linux, since those systems are running the game, not VR. For games that run on Oculus Quest (a standalone system that doesn't require connection to consoles or PCs), we can list Oculus Quest as the platform, since the Quest itself is running it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It is trying to deal with the issue of Oculus, but further that VR games are genuinely considered as a new "platform" like the difference between arcade and console games. Awards have separate categories for VR titles. Industry economic reports group VR differently from most other computer games, etc. There's enough indication that while on a technical basis we can classify most VR games by their underlying OS, that everyone else treat VR itself as a base platform, and at least in the infobox we should be giving that indicator somehow for a game that supports VR. Half-Life: Alyx's infobox alone does not at all indicate it is a VR game yet it is the killer app for VR and we're missing this somehow. --Masem (t) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. So, ^Agree--Panini!🥪 15:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. I get the logic here but I'm very cautious to go along with it, because I think we're at risk of adding more confusion than clarity by introducing wildly inconsistent rules to our infobox fields. Popcornfud (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Which is why I want to be careful how we introduce it and set rules for it, just as we were careful when we considered Stadia as a platform after routinely not adding other streaming platforms. --Masem (t) 15:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't part of the Stadia discussion - is there a good place to see what the logic/rules were around that? Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The primary reason was that it included exclusives that couldn't be played on other platforms. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
So if something has exclusives it is a platform? Interesting. ➧datumizer  ☎  23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's not so much about that, as it would be kind of weird to have games without a platform in the infobox (or at least without a valid entry on the "platform" field of inboxes.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think VR should be treated as a platform. If anything, it's a whole different paradigm that doesn't have any past analogies. The only unambiguously separate characteristic is that you need a headset. But it may or may not need specific hardware, like PC or console or phone or being stand-alone. The game may or may not need specific platform like Windows or whatever console or handheld. The games may or may not support any combination of OS, hardware, and headset. And that's not mentioning tracking (if any) or controller (if any) or modes (room-scale, seated, etc.) compatibility. There are just too many variables that I don't think this will ever fit with the existing schemes, especially since existing schemes are still applicable with both VR and non-VR modes. I would go as far as to say that VR games should have infobox VR fields where things like headsets and such are described in some ways that you are already thinking about. It's certainly a headache-inducing question. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The thing that stands out is that right now for a VR-only game, our current approach on the infobox does not make it clear that a VR-only game is actually VR unless editors misuse parameters like on Astro Bot right now. An arcade game is clearly indicated, and as long as one is familiar with home vs handheld, one can clearly make the distinction of those platforms. With VR, we don't yet have the type of ecosystem where every headset is its own platform (some are, like Oculus), but going down the line that each supported headset is mentioned as a platform almost is like the early days of personal computer games ala Lemmings where there would become dozens of platforms listed. I would strongly advise against the addition of a separate parameter to indicate a VR game as we have recently removed parameters tied to arcade games for the same reason. But I think we can indicate VR in a minimally intrusive way. --Masem (t) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I support it being added in some capacity. Otherwise we're going to have games without a platform in certain circumstances, like with Stadia before we made changes with that. Sergecross73 msg me 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Age of EmpiresEdit

Hello, I am currently working on a project of adding Age of Empires players and tournaments as they have increased substantially in notability recently. Would anyone be able to help me improve these articles and keep them from being deleted? In addition I'm pretty new but guy who recently won a large tournament is named after a greek god and I Don't know how to make an article use the username without going to the god's page. Would it be possible to add Age of Empires to the list of RTS esports titles along with Warcraft 3 and Starcraft? Its smaller than Starcraft but bigger than Warcraft 3 by a large margin. My recent pages are TheViper and Hidden Cup Youngdrake (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Youngdrake: I can help try to get these articles up to snuff, but I’ll be a bit busy the next couple days. Some quick notes:

  • Do not use liquipedia or other wikis as sources, they are WP:UGC and generally not reliable sources.
  • Check out WP:VG/RS when looking for reliable sources. Reliable news articles are your best bet — if (reliable) news outlets aren’t talking about it, it probably should not be included.

A quick google search for TheViper yields several results from VPEsports and Red Bull; those may be enough to demonstrate notability. Pbrks (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that thank you! Youngdrake (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers free weekendEdit

They have a free weekend, and I'm clipping anime and video game articles. Once clipped, any newspaper article can be viewed for free by anyone. If anyone has any requests I can clip articles. A lot of it is are ads, or very low quality coverage, but sometimes you hit gems like an Associated Press coverage of Princess Maker 2 of all things. Most modern newspapers should have online archives, so this is mostly for retro games. AP and UPI do have online archives, but I've found them far from complete.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful 2021 chapters on the Czech and Polish vg industriesEdit

For those brave enough to write articles on the larger industries (as opposed to individual games which has been my speciality): --Coin945 (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Roblox"Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roblox#Splitting Proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Result was split. Panini!🥪 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 6 to May 9)Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

Bot came back, so there's 7 days compressed into 4. --PresN 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternate names on templatesEdit

An editor has recently performed the following edit, removing a hatnote of sorts which spells out the systems' original name, the rationale being that this isn't adding any additional link to navigate to. if people want to know alternative names, they can click the link in the article. This followed a discussion over a similar change insisted for Template:Resident Evil. I should note that according to the NES template box's edit history, the hatnote has existed on the template for NES for several years without any objection from any other editors over a template's proper usage on Wikipedia, and that there does not appear to be any guideline or policy that I am aware of which provides guidance on whether alternate names which are used in parallel with the established common name should or should not be included on the nav box. Common sense aside, I don't believe a link must have a valid white link for it to warrant inclusion on a nav box under any circumstances? Haleth (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For me, this is common sense. These aren't articles, they're just templates to assist in navigating between articles. So why do we need a guideline to optimize the template for what they're designed to do?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • When composing the template for the Sega Genesis, I used both names in the title on the top of the template alongside both console variations images, seen here. Something like this might work. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sega Genesis/Mega Drive is a different circumstance because Mega Drive is the name in Europe as well (English-speaking) and not just in Japan. Famicom/NES and Biohazard/Resident Evil are circumstances when they are only known as those names in non-English speaking locations. That's why I didn't do that for those templates.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Famicom was sold as Famicom in several non-Japanese speaking countries, at least a few where English is indeed widely spoken as a second language, the Philippines being one example. The "Biohazard" name or brand has been used and continues to be used in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. English is certainly spoken by a significant portion of the population in Hong Kong, for example. Again, this is the American or European perspective dictating content I was referring to when I protested. Haleth (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote in the Resident Evil discussion, I'm in favor of keeping templates simple. They're for navigation, not information.
Let's just the terms used in the articles themselves, which derive from the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I could maybe imagine exceptions in circumstances where multiple names are so commonly used in the English-speaking world (this is the English Wikipedia) that only using one may cause confusion, but NES/Famicom isn't that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Things like this are explained in articles. And are generally explained there to a degree that borders excessive. They don't belong on navigation templates too. Keep them simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic. I would personally like to see alternate names in navbox headers, infobox headers and even page titles/headers. (In small font.) But imagine if NES had been released under a different name in each region, or in each and every country (even limiting to same language). We would have to list them all, thereby creating a huge mess! (And there are probably plenty of non-video game-related areas of the site where this issue crops up a lot more. For instance, Wikipedia got rid of the list of languages in the sidebar because there were so many.) ➧datumizer  ☎  00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've generally fallen on the side of keeping nav templates for navigation, not information. Let redirects do the work of sending people to the explanation of alternate names. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

FT/GT opinionEdit

Hi, I've got a problem. I've ended up nominating two topics at the same time (Fabula Nova Crystallis and Final Fantasy Type-0). I knew there might be work involved in getting them passed, but the scope of objections and requests are getting beyond my current Wikipedia allowance. My real world commitments aren't giving me the time or energy to address them with full adequacy, along with the slow-going/suspended GAs I've got at the moment (Dead Space music and Akitoshi Kawazu). Would it be better to close the topic noms down? If so, how do I do that? (Just to clarify, the points being raised within the topic noms are valid and need addressing, but combined with other Wiki projects and real-world commitments, I'm finding myself unable to invest energy to address them.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like on Type-0 they want trans-titles for the Japanese references, and on FNC/Type-0 they want a subcategory for FNC? I can handle that. (The other comment, that Oerba Yun Fang and Oerba Dia Vanille aren't in the FF13 topic, is separate from these topic noms and one that's easily solved by merging them back into Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series; I'll handle that too). --PresN 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Handled the trans-titles and the category, so you're up to 4 supports on the Type-0 GTC and no pending objections on the FNC FTC. I think they'll be fine. --PresN 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a review from Game Informer Issue 115 (November 2002)Edit

Hey, I'm working to improve Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, a stub article with barely any content. According to my research, there should be a review of the game in Issue 115 of Game Informer (November 2002), but sadly I can't find an online copy. If anyone has a copy of this issue, the review would be greatly appreciated. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to find Game Informer's review online either, so I hope someone'll help out! In the meantime, I found a review in Total Advance (owned by Paragon Publishing) for you [1]. There's also a coverage of the game in 4Players's sister website [2]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast for those finds - thank you so much! That should get the article to at least five reviews (I have reviews from IGN and GameZone, plus the GI one) which is quite respectable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: It's only brief, but you can find the full review on the bottom left here, written by Matt Helgeson. Looks like somebody uploaded the full issue to Imgur (though the images appear out of order to me). – Rhain 23:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, Rhain that's exactly what I needed! Didn't expect it to be long but it's more than enough. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05:I'll also help you, not with reviews but uploading a gameplay screenshot for the page. I'm busy with college stuff but it's the least i can do to help! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @KGRAMR:! I should have the prose done in my sandbox very soon so that would be great once I shift everything over to the main page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05:Cool! ping me once you move your work into the page's artcile to upload the screenshot. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
KGRAMR ready to rumble! I ordered the manual off eBay (couldn't find a scan), which should cover the two citation needed tag.Toa Nidhiki05 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter surveyEdit

Hey all! I'm drafting up another survey. To not be annoying, this might be my last one for a while. The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If I have not reached out to you on your talk page and you would like to participate and make your voice heard, please leave a response on my talk page. Thank you! Panini!🥪 02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (May 10 to May 16)Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

  • Yikes, there were even more hoax Sonic drafts than I thought... Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    *Gasp*, Sonic Unleashed 2?! FINALLY!!!1! Panini!🥪 14:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A variety of IPs. None are being published, so it's not too big of a deal. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if hoaxes or just being waaay too preemptive since most appears as redirects to an untitled Sonic game, which is something we know Sega is working on, but it 1) unnecessary to have an article for and 2) completely wrong to create a bunch of possible redirects from all possible Sonic series on the presumption one of these could be it. --Masem (t) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know, one of the the same IPs created a Super Luigi Galaxy 3 draft too, which really pushes the limits of my good faith interpretations. But that aside, what you said is exactly why I started deleting a bunch of the drafts I came across - real of fakes, there's no point in having a Sonic Generations 2 draft when there's literally nothing known about the subject. We're not in such a rush that an empty draft that says "Sonic Generations 2 is a video game" is particularly helping anyone out. (The ones I deleted were actual drafts, not just redirects.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Quick and easy vandalism is one thing, but I'll never understand how people can take the time to create extremely obvious hoaxes that would be reverted on sight instead of improving existing articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Kinda gave up tracking them, but this reminds me of our old LTA User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal Ben · Salvidrim!  16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Who cares about Game & Wario? Honestly.Edit

I'm doing a sweep-through of the WarioWare series. Why? Good question. How should I rewrite the gameplay section of Game & Wario? Simply explain that there are twelve or should I list them out and explain them, like Nintendo Land? Panini!🥪 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive character listsEdit

These two articles, List of Kirby characters and Characters in the Mario franchise, have been poor quality for at least a decade. They both cover dozens, if not hundreds, of characters in superficial detail. When we have character lists as big as these, would it help to denote some sort of guideline aside from notability that can help cull and get these articles under control? In other words, where could someone start if they wanted to improve this article, and how can we make it easier? I guess these questions are extremely broad, but I wanted to get some attention to this, as it's definitely not limited to just these two articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

At the Sonic list, which by no means is a great article, we created inclusion criteria like having multiple playable appearances or something to that capacity. It's culled out some of the minor one-off characters at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Sergecross's suggestion makes a lot of sense, and would apply in these two cases, if not more generally. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to making Serge's suggestion a MOS-type of guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Ferret and I recently enforced a similar guideline at Talk:List of Roblox games. Panini!🥪 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This is WP:LISTCRITERIA for those looking for a guideline to quote. Makes total sense in these two cases. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Book citationsEdit

I'm nearing the completion of the FAC of Paper Mario, finally. The article cites this book for the 2020 sales of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, but I'm unsure which pages say so. Does anyone have this book to confirm the pages, or is there an alternative link to finding so? I'm no good with book citations... Panini!🥪 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't have the book but here is the very detailed ToC. If you know which chapter your numbers are from, you know approximately where to look. IceWelder [] 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Particularly in the day of ebooks where there is no effective pages, citing the chapter is appropriate. WP:V wants enough "narrowing" of the source so that you're giving the reader a reasonable location to search through, and instead of a 400-600 page book, a 20-30 page range in a chapter is fine for this. --Masem (t) 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reached out to User:Roadrunnerto‎. They're the one that implemented the CESA citations into the List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS video games and List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games, so I assume they hopefully have an answer to what chapter it can be found in. Panini!🥪 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You can see the table of contents for the CESA white papers at [3] and from there you can see that the chapter is Chapter 10 - Research Materials, specifically pages 182-223. --Roadrunnerto 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Video games".