WikiProject Computer and video games/archive5 |
This is an archive of earlier discussions from as of 16:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC).
=Series infobox=
considering the number of series articles, shouldn t we find a standart for series infoboxes using the current box I ve seen a few articles so well developed that each title has it s own full-sized infobox ( 00:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC) :Hmm...that s a good idea. The 21:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC) ::Haha.. I fixed that :) though the page needs to be expanded for sure. 00:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :I guess that would depend on all the variables. How many different developers / publishers (the 2K series is now a different publisher for instance), how many games in the actual series... etc etc etc. Not something easy to do. For an article like Fifa or Madden I disagree with adding a bunch of infoboxes even if the article was fully developed such as 00:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, the table seems a good idea, however in the case of the FIFA Series, unless the article is rewritten, it still wouldn t work all that great, since each game has it s own sub-entry. The idea, like the regular infobox, is give a quick overview over the series, not list the complete titles. One idea would be a new infobox with fields such as: ::*name ::*image (possibly, picking from the best or most important game or selecting the best cover) ::*genre (tricky with some games) ::*number of games in the series ::*Developer/Publisher (only if permanent) ::*spin-offs (Games like FIFA Street of DoA Extreme Volleyball)
:: 07:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Just as another idea possibly, we could do a horizontal template. Not every game needs to have boxart shown off either. See 18:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC).
___
Right, I ve worked something out 14:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I like the one with the AoE boxes. Looks pretty good. 16:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I don t really like any of them to be honest. I suppose the second one (AOE) is the best, but not a solution that I thought we were looking for. The first one doesn t really do a good job of doing an overview of the game in addition to everything thats already listed there as a negative. I kind of like the third one in an ideal situation, but heh... it just won t work because those situations are few and far. Perhaps we can do just a regular CVG infobox, but add in two additional lines for games in the series (Preceeding, Following). See 19:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I don t think any of them should be used as-is obviously, thanks for getting them up there for us though. I think the best choice to evolve from would be the third horizontal infobox. It lends itself well to not needlessly filling an article with empty space as it can be easily slotted at the top of each games section. This box would need all the relevant information from the current CVG Infobox besides things that span the series; possibly genre, publisher/developer, rating... These things can be different per title however and so a lot more of the infobox should just be made optional, anything that spans the series could be declared in the series introduction section right up the top of the article and excluded from the infoboxes to save space, if needed. – 01:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Era Standardization - Take 2=
I guess it s time to open up this discussion again. The era s are all differently named. The articles we have so far are: *8-bit era *History of video games (16-bit era) *History of video games (32-bit era) *Sixth generation era *Seventh-generation era
For the record, the umbrella article is History of computer and video games. I don t think, considering our computer and video game naming convention that History of video games ( ) is proper. I do think that that might be the way to go though, History of computer and video games (8-bit era) for example. 32-bit is arguable since 1 of the main systems during that era is 64-bit.
I still don t know what to do with the 6th and 7th generation eras. First they re not consistent (one has a hyphen) and second I ve never heard of either of these being referred to by these names. For 6th, I ve heard of 128-bit, but that was more of a marketing thing than anything else. 7th could arguably be the HD era, but thats a Microsoft marketing thing. :(
This needs to be addressed (again). Any ideas 02:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:* Well, on the 128-bit, marketing or no, its how the era will be remembered. Even considering it might not be totally accurate, the article itself should reflect that. With the 7th, I d suggest leaving it alone or changing to future until more is known. After all, none of the consoles were released. 03:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
:* Looking at histories of other topics, it s common to have non-standard eras since history doesn t divide neatly into chunks. It might be best to ignore the generation label and just do 10:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
::*I d agree with 10:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ::*Gotta disagree. This was my first thought too, but years complicate the issue even more because sometimes there is no clear year for a break off especially when dealing with Japanese release dates. Dreamcast isn t the only exception. 16:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
*Well I dont agree with naming the generations in terms of bit rate. For one bit rate is not as important anymore, two all consoles have different bit rates now. For example the 32-bit era, the N64 was 64bit so you would have to name this generation 32/64-bit era, but then bit rates havent changed at all since the PS1/N64 days (with the exception of the PS2 which is 128bit) as the current Xbox and GameCube are 32 and 64-bit respectively. Three no one calls generations by bit rate anymore anyway, I remember there was some talk about the PS2/GameCube just before the generation began about them being 128bit but once companies dropped the whole bit thing as a marketing point people pretty much forgot about it. I really dont know what you going to call the PS/N64/SS generation, Real-3D generation nah that sounds crap. Being a die-hard Nintendo fan we could just call the generations N1 (NES), N2 (SNES), N3 (N64) etc =P -- 09:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
As pointed out though thats what they re known for. I m planning to make the changes to these articles soon unless someone disagrees. I plan to do it like this:
*History of computer and video games (8-bit era) *History of computer and video games (16-bit era) *History of computer and video games (32-bit era) *Sixth generation era *Seventh generation era
The only one that is debatable is the 32-bit era one, which is known as the 32-bit era regardless of there being a 64-bit system in the mix. I d rather not get into the whole 32-bit/64-bit naming scheme. If we have to we can switch it to 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I still maintain that the inherent fuzziness in the subject matter makes date-based organisation the least-worst option. After all, the only reason to break it up is because it s technically inelegant to have a 300Kb page.
:Also, is this the history of computer and video games or just video games PCs don t fit into the bit-scheme or the generation-scheme; other computers even less so. I do think that there is no sense having two parallel histories of both computer games and video games, which is another reason I prefer the date-based system, as it doesn t take such a console-centric viewpoint.
:However, as long as your scheme makes it obvious to the reader where to find the next section, I have no major objections, and since it s you volunteering to do the work, I m happy for you to take the lead :) Could I suggest the latter two articles become 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ::I just don t know if I can agree with dates. The problem lies with where one generation supposedly ends and where another begins. The Atari Jaguar for instance was released in 1993, but its not at all apart of the 16-bit generation. What about just going by (1st, 2nd,) 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th generations (I m honestly not sure what the 1st and 2nd are. Creation & Atari)
::I don t know about renaming the last two. Seems fine. Could also be 21:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
::: Bitness was a marketing ploy from the start - there is no causal relationship between number of bits and processing power; it s just a design decision. Indeed, the Jaguar had the same CPU as the Sega Genesis (68000), and I do remember it more as a Genesis/SNES competitor than a PS/Saturn competitor, though admittedly part of neither generation . There are a handful of minority consoles - 3DO, CD32, CDi - that don t fall neatly into the bitness/generation eras either. And histories are essentially timelines, so it would be perverse to talk about the Jaguar in the same section as the 64-bit N64 which came 3 years later.
:::As for generations... these terms are all neologisms. Every new console since the PS1 has been part of simply the next generation . Generations are also complicated by handheld systems. What generation is the Nintendo DS in It s certainly advanced for being so compact, but the graphics are N64-level. And this is without even considering where the PC fits in.
:::But anyway, you probably dislike dates more than I dislike bits/generations, so I don t mind which you choose.
:::I suggested the renaming because I thought that if the first 3 articles had History of computer and video games in the title, then the rest should too. -- 22:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, let me also concede that flat dates are not good for navigation by the reader - why would someone care about the period 1995-2000 based just on the dates No idea how to solve this one. ( The Rise of Sony might make a good heading for one era...) -- 22:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Well I do agree that bits do make it more console-centric which we shouldn t do. The only way I can see this going without much debate is really a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. etc. for the naming. That way we can add computer stuff, not be confined by dates etc. As I previously stated though I m not exactly sure what 1st and 2nd are. I guessed 2nd is between the crashes of 77 and 83. The first being Early stuff. ::::I just want to get this settled so I can do a cleanup of the main article 23:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::::It s a hard problem; would be good to hear input from others. However, I definitely agree that the current article(s) could use a major cleanup.
:::::On reflection, take a look at History of Christianity. I think that s the kind of layout we should be aiming for - one very broad article linking together many smaller articles. So in our case, History of computer and video games should be the entire history, written very broadly, with most of the content moved to pages like SNES, Console Wars, 3D graphics, etc.. Thus, no need to make explicit reference to generations (or at least not in the title).
:::::I shall sleep on it :) -- 23:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::If you ll look at the edit history of the main article, I ve been trying to clean it up as best I can for the past several months, especially in adding the PC side. However, I haven t really touched anything past the 16-bit era. Whether you use bits or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, the generations ARE console-centric, because they re based around tangible steps or leaps in console technology. PC game development simply doesn t fit into these generations, being much more fluid. That s why I put the console generations as subheaders of the decades. I think the generation sub-articles should stick to consoles, as they are what are defined by those eras. Except in cases like emulation, where computers have a direct relation to them. A better solution for me would be to make a parallel series of sub-articles for the computer side of things. :::::As I understand it, the first generation was the home pong machines and their clones. The second starts with the cartridge systems like the 2600 but gets really fuzzy in its division to the 8-bit NES/Master System era. I m not entirely sure the second and third should be separate, unless you count the crash of 1983 as a divisor. -- 02:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::In my opinion the section should be just consoles/handhelds and not include computers, since that just complicates things... Besides, the computer part could expand more freely on it s own. So it would be beneficial for both consoles and computers to be in their own articles...
= setting up a CVG peer review =
I was wondering (could be the result of a late-night caffeine-induced insomnia) about some way to get collective input for enhancing some developed articles that don t qualify for either CVG-Stub and the GCOTW. For instance, I ve seen some quite developed articles in the later that could use some review for new cleanups, sections and overall improvement etc but due to their size, never got past the 3 or 6 votes barrier (if not even one).
My idea goes around something like , except the goal would be to turn an article into one of the example articles (or simply better ) instead of FAC. I occasionally see or write articles that could be further developed, but can t pinpoint where.
If it s a foolish idea, nevermind, call in someone with a megaphone saying There s nothing to see here, move along . 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Are you suggesting something like the 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::nope, that s quite similar to the GCOTW, and implies that participants must be knowledgeable enough about the game in question to participate. My idea is that anyone with basic CVG knowledge can look into an article and say it could use this and that even if he doesn t knows much about the game. 02:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It s not crazy. I ve thought of it too, but unfortunately it conflicts with a lot of other ongoing projects such as Peer Review, Article improvement drive, GCOTW etc. Options: :#We can list it here on this talk page for peer review from the CVG community :#Add it to under a new section called Peer review :#Nominate for GCOTW anyway stating the reasons why. :#Starting a subpage here that handles it. :Not sure what the best option is. 03:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:: This is a good idea. To me, #2 sounds the best. 04:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:: From that, my suggestion goes to a simple subpage only pointing to the articles, with all comments going to the respective talk page not too obtrusive, but still organized enough. Still, #2 looks good, too, but risks growing too large. 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I think that listing articles on this talk page would be too distracting and has the potential to overtake the page. I think that added them to the Gamebox template would be the best option, although creating a subpage here that handles it may be more appropriate. I m not sure between those two. -- 16:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::At first glance i like #2 because its an easily solution, but with the risk of it growing to large, i d prefer something like number 4. I think that d be the most efficient way to handle peer reviews. -- 23:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::So, anyone cares to shout for a more defitive option I d say a subpage of this talk page is the best option. Just a simple index of articles that need a certain it with links to them and their talk pages, for quicker access. 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC) :::Lets go with that then. It doesn t hurt to try. June 29, 2005 18:19 (UTC) ::::I started constructing the page, form the peer review we already have. It needs a lot of work before we can offically begin the project. so please click the link above to help make this work. -- 29 June 2005 19:36 (UTC) *The page has been worked on by me, 1 July 2005 14:09 (UTC) *I made the first nomination. Check it out. on the peer review page. 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
=Infobox picture=
(If this has been brought up before, I was not aware.) I don t think that using a picture of the cover is as informative as using an in-game screenshot. This type of thing works for a movie, where the picture is made to be memorable and relevant (perhaps of the main characters, or some central thing ), but for games, it s misleading. Compare 04:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:What s wrong with both ( 04:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::An infobox is supposed to be a very quick glimpse at vital information. I think a typical screenshot is much, much better than what s on the box, and should take priority in an encyclopedia. Box art is almost always some form of advertising gimmick: the major brand symbol and fancy lettering. Who cares to see that And those two examples have screenshots leading the articles, which is the same thing an infobox would do. 00:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, 90% of the articles that have infoboxes have box art. And 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I vote for screenshots — they show the perspective the game is played from, the interface, and the quality of graphics, which may also be a rough indicator of the game s age (but not necessarily). Box art is designed to sell the game, and is often an artistic exaggeration of the gameplay. -- 04:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I vote for not really giving a damn either way. As people have pointed out, it depends very much on the specific game. I m not convinced there s really any reason to start trying to enforce a standard here. Let the people who are actually doing the article edits for a game make the call as to what works better ::shrugs:: – 04:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Anyway, finding a good, quality screenshot is really hard, especially for the older games. Box art is just easier for me usually. 04:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::If you don t have a screenshot at all, then use the boxart. I think it d be ridiculous to use box art for older games though. Have a look at the wolf 3d box art. I ve played that game all the way through repeatedly in my youth, and the box art is completely foriegn to me. I look at it, and think oh... so that s what the box looked like , and then I wonder why it s even there, because I ll never be buying that game, and because it s just some generic advertisement. 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don t really see why this is an issue really. Ideally, I prefer to see the boxart in the infobox with screenshots elsewhere in the article. Examples being 04:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I was gonna say that eventually. Heh. 04:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::I don t understand why you see box art as informative. Could you please explain 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Who ever said it had to be informative Why does IGN display boxart on the right side of the page with their reviews. Same for Gamespot and practically every other gaming website. Why do we show movie posters on Wikipedia in the infobox instead of stills (I disagree with the notion below that people can t recognize a good still from a movie - but this is really beside the point). No one said it has to be informative. A good article will have screenshots in the article already anyway, so why add -yet another- to the infobox if boxart is available (if boxart can t be found or whatever - a screenshot is definitely fine). Other than that I simply cannot agree. How in the world would adding -yet another- screenshot of Mario 64 to the article in its infobox make it more informative than it is now There is no answer to that question. I d rather encourage people to expand articles and add screenshots to help convey whatever they re talking about. To a lesser extent, keeping it as is also discourages edit wars over which screenshot better showcases a game (I guarentee it would happen, multiple times). 06:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::::This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopeda is a compilation of knowledge. Knowledge informs. IGN can do what it likes, they aren t an encyclopedia. If it s not informative, it shouldn t be here, because that would detract from what IS informative. A movie still says nothing about a movie. A screenshot says just about everything about a game: genre, interface, perspective, general setting, approximate year of creation. It says little about the story, or the game s history, or intricate details. Box art gives the logo, and in very rare cases, the genre. Nothing else. It s like you ve found something that there s only one of per each game, and it s easy to get, so phew, I m glad it s so simple, what a relief, our work here is done. We re not adding -yet another- screenshot anywhere - we re putting a screenshot where it does the most good, which is up at the top, and in the info box, where people can expect it to reside, and can always expect it to be an accurate general representation of the game (we would never, for example, put a final fantasy cut-scene in an infobox). Add the box art as an image to the article if you re intent on displaying it. Personally I think it s useless (it is, and you havn t provided any evidence against). And the comment on edit wars is like saying well, we shouldn t let the children go outside, because they may trip and hurt themselves . In summary: encyclopedia = informative, not collection of junk , a screenshot is extremely informative, box art is useless. 08:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Well I m sorry I m going to let you down here, but I don t believe boxart is useless. It s about as useless as showing movie posters, comic book covers, book covers, magazine covers, DVD/VHS/ covers, newspapers, etc etc etc. As originally commented, I wholeheartedly disagree for the need to replace the boxart with a screenshot. I await more input from other users. 18:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Just to clarify, none of those mediums have anything better. And you didn t tell me how box art isn t useless, you just told me that other completely different mediums use a near equivelant, and somehow that makes box art not clearly worse than a good screenshot. You won t need to do any work, and box art wouldn t be banned or anything. I just want a consensus reached now, so that if later I or anyone else decides to find some good screenshots and stick them into the infobox, then there ll be no dispute, and it won t be replaced by the game s logo because that s what all the other places do . 18:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::I ve already stated a number of times what I feel an ideal article should look like. That s my reasoning. I believe people associate games best with box art, period. How can you tell the difference between Mortal Kombat: Deception and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance in a screenshot. I sure can t and I m not so sure I could do it for games that are sequels of expansions of games I ve even played such as Call of Duty and Call of Duty: United Offensive. If you want to put screenshots in the infobox on articles that have no boxart then that s fine and dandy ( 20:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::(response is on next line, too many indents) As do I, but I see nothing wrong with having this discussion in the meantime. Now, I hope this doesn t seem rude, I d just rather not tiptoe around it since I completely disagree: what you said about not being able to tell the difference is absolutely ridiculous . You can tell the difference from the name of the article . You re not supposed to tell the difference there anyway! They re both very similar, so it only makes sense for the screenshots to be... very similar. It s as if there are people out there who somehow open these two pages, ignoring the title, and get confused over which game is which. Absurd. I can understand that people (like the editors) who are very familiar with the game, they ll be able to pick up the logo that is on the box (and which is also on the title screen), but the average reader probably doesn t care in the least about what picture was on the cardboard that the game was encased in. And I can see the point about standards, though I still think it s stupid to go with a standard when something better exists, all things considered. But this notion that people will get confused by similarities in games that are very similar, and ignore everything except the screenshot, including the name of the game right at the top - it s absolutely ridiculous. I m sorry. 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Excuse me if I rant but I d say box art is far from useless , nor do I think a screenshot would be as useful as you seem to think it would be ( telling everything about a game ). Firstly; the only thing you can reliably tell from a screenshot is the games rendering technology, the rest would be assumptions made from stereotypes, e.g: :::::* Genre: Postal (computer game) , isometric view, that means it must be some sort of Diablo / Fallout (computer game) ish RPG Wrong, it plays just like a shoot em up where you run around, pick up ammo and weapons, and use them with the main goal of just staying alive. Myst, well that s in first-person, so maybe it s an FPS Wrong, it s an adventure game. :::::* Perspective: Hitman (computer game) , Psychonauts , pretty much every car racing game, MMO s such as Guild Wars and possibly Star Wars Galaxies or World of Warcraft , the new Prince of Persias, and many more, all have a number of different toggle-able perspective s from first-person, to third-person, to landscape. All of which could not be told from any single screenshot, much like: :::::* User interface: An interface for any application is by it s nature, interactive and dynamic, which is extremely hard to show in any screenshot, since there could very well be a multitude of states it could be in; popped-out menu s, re-arrangable gauges, colouring options, et cetera. Any of which if displayed, would still be pretty impossible to make out at the size it would be shown, unless the person had played the game before. :::::* General setting: Daikatana springs to mind, with any one screenshot you can only show one environment, in a game which there a many and varied (even different times and countries in history), but you wouldn t know that from simply looking at a screenshot. :::::These are just the one s you ve listed, and show s that a screenshot by itself does not only not give you the information you stated, but can in fact be misleading without accompanying text (as would be the case if it was put into context as it could in the articles body). All this like 03:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said, an infobox is supposed to be a very quick glimpse at vital information. I don t see how the boxart is vital at all. No, I do, it lets people ( who are familiar with the game ) recognize the game based on the title... which just so happens to be the title of the article. I m not saying we should enforce it, I m saying we should encourage it: we recommend not using boxart if a screenshot is available, and any disputes between the two would favor the screenshot. It s like some weird collection/junk hoard, where for some reason we need to put the box somewhere in the article... but we can t find a good place to put it (I wonder why) so we just put it in the infobox. And it sits there useless, because it s not informative . Movies are movies, you seldom recognize/differentiate them by a screencap anyway, so they don t have anything better than the poster. Games do. 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anyway. I ve suggested a change in the infobox some months (or maybe around a year, dunno) ago that had two image placeholders: one for the box shot right where it is now, and a second, on the bottom of the infobox with a screenshot. I ve originally thought of this to ease the inclusion of screenies in stubby/short articles, the particular example being KGB (computer game) , and since I ve never went around to article to improve it and can t place the screenshot anywhere in the article (I hate putting screenies or anything but text leftside of the infobox) its still more a less like I ve created it.
IMHO, the WP:CVG should follow the same line of the others (books, movies and music) and display the box cover. Different things, yes, but it s standartization, regardless. There is a number of reasons why this way is better (namely console games, where most screenies are from commercial websites and subsq. watermarked and there aren t any problems with the game looking better or worse on personal computers), although for really old or commercially obscure games, a screenshot might result better. Said that, I still believe a second image in the infobox should be included. Don t know how it slipped by when we ve changed to the template thingy. 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: Adding a screenshot field to the infobox would be good, but box art shouldn t be the primary image simply on the basis of standard. The basis should be what does a better job of informing the user. 20:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: But how informing Think sports games, where from distance they all look the same. FPSs (and quite honestly, any genre) with equal setting (WWII, tolkien-ish fantasy, etc) also look the same. We re talking about a 255px max picture (and I m even on 800x600), where most of the details that make a difference from game to game goes into smithereens. And what about games that are published on pcs/consoles and have a much different handheld version, or even differ in ports, like 20:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::: Please see my comments above. You re saying that all these games look indistinguishable in small screenshot form (I disagree, and you re forgetting that people click on them to expand), and that box art, which doesn t say anything about the game itself, much less can it differentiate between games of opposing genre, that it s better. I don t see it this way at all. Try to see this from the point of view of the reader - here, look at it this way, maybe my point will come through better: if you needed to know something about a new game, if I gave you the option between seeing the boxart, or a reasonable screenshot, but not both, which one would you choose 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::He argued the point of such a small picture being as informative as you said it would, not that they d be indistinguishable. Wouldn t having to click the screenshot before you could see anything useful be counter-productive to having an infobox as a very quick glimpse . – 04:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Boy oh boy, why don t we just go ahead to voting this once and for all It s perhaps only one user supported the idea, and it s highly unlikely this will change
:::::Please don t be rude. 15:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::I m being rude I m only pointing out that a consensus should be reached, and as you kindly put out all the arguments in a different section, I guess everyone should now be able to form their own opinion and give a clear indication on what guidelines should this WP follow. Continuing a stalemate discussion is just a waste of time and space, and quite honestly, I m not inclined to make further comments until a decision is to be made. Like I ve always said: Both screenshot and box shot are fundamental parts of the game identification (one of the reasons my infobox design had two image places), but the box shot should always prevail as the primary. 17:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I think a screenshot placed at the bottom of the infobox is a very good idea, it would also encourage the use of screenshots in game articles, which is needed. – 03:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:What s the policy on swiping screenshots out of what I get from a google search Does someone own the copyright on the unique photography or what I d like to try to get some sort of comparison together. 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Nevermind, fair use applies here as well. 07:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see:
The following is in no way authoritative and is intended more as a warning to the following content, but I d like to strike the proceeding Arguments in favor of... sections from the record (for want of a better term), if not remove them completely, as they do nothing but repeat what has been said above, but with the addition of the authors ( 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:They repeat what has been said above in a matter that is clear and concise. The above is only long because people keep bringing up the same topics repeatedly, and favor verbosity over terseness. If you feel that there is any bais, you may freely remove that bias. I assert that there is no major bias; I believe that your concerns come not from bias, but from your inability to make a rational argument for the case of using box art, beyond that listed, and argued against, below. Again, if you feel that there is any bias below, please edit accordingly. 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::The only point I ve argued is the usefulness of having a screenshot in the location you suggest. You stated that A screenshot says just about everything about a game: genre, interface, perspective, general setting, approximate year of creation. I merely pointed out that the only thing you can infer for certain from a screenshot of that size with no accompanying context, is it s rendering technology. Although even that at a very quick glimpse would be challenging to ascertain (other than 2D versus 3D of course). – 07:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::You have looked at 15:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes I have, but let s stick to the former shall we, since it covers more of what we re talking about. Let s take the last four, with Fallout 2, StarCraft, Psychonauts and Guild Wars. Tell me what you can infer from those screenshots alone, at a very quick glimpse (without clicking for a larger image), concerning the games user interface, environments, genre, perspectives and year of creation. Of course you should assume you have never played any of them before ( no nothing about the game ). Also include which part of the screenshot helped you infer this information for each. Thank you if you choose to oblige. – 02:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Good plan, this should work out well enough since I havn t played any of the games in question, though I m reasonably familiar with starcraft, and the genre of guild wars and fallout. (Dropping my reply down one to avoid excessive indentation) *Fallout: point-to-move, rpg/combat, top-down view. Top-down with visible people usually means rpg, rpg/action, or a combination. It isn t an action scene, so I assume that it s heavier on the rpg. There s a harpoon in a giant action slot - it s partly action, and there are items. The bar at the bottom, with buttons, makes it look like there s more to the interface than that (at the least inventory and probably character screen). The setting looks modern, so it s sci-fi. I play this game by moving the character around weird urban environments, clicking on people or objects, killing enemies with weapons like the harpoon. Looks older. *Starcraft: top-down view, strategy game, lotsa action. Strategy because of the vehicles, and not people. Lotsa action due to the blood splotches. Futuristic, but contrary to the title (Starcraft), I m not managing planets - I m sending fleshy things to kill (or die to) metal things, and vice-versa. There s a mini-map, and various action buttons. I build buildings. Looks older. *Psychonauts: rotating camera platformer - it s 3d, and the angle is off; too cartoony to be anything else. I use one of three skills/attacks/whatever to navigate through some sort of dream-like place. I m mad at lawers who keep rejecting my flight school applications (this part isn t very serious). The landscape is strange. It s like playing mario 64 on drugs, and there s more moves and attacks you can do on the baddies. Looks newer. *Guildwars: fantasy action/rpg, view mostly behind the character. You can cast neat spells. There s a map. The landscape is realistic and detailed. Your characters look cool. You run around and kill stuff with that sword, but not too often. Looks really new. Sadly, despite the above information, the best stuff is conveyed in what I can t write out, as is the nature of pictures. You could describe the entire screenshot to people, and there may be hundreds of things that they could have in their minds. Also, opening these pictures up, I don t see any major change, and my pixels are small, and 250 isn t that big for me. Yeah, that notice board shows up better, and that black mushroom in the middle of the road is actually another player, and I can see that the sc interface has counters up at the top, but this stuff isn t important. This exercise is kind of going off the track of the other, and probably better arguments. How many people, when hearing of a new game, look for the box art or the text describing it before they look at the screenshots, assuming screenshots are available 04:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Arguments in favor of using screenshots ==
== Arguments in favor of using box art ==
My $0.02- use the box art in the infobox (if available, if it is not available, use a screenshot,) and if both are available, use the box art. However, both certainly belong in the article. 18:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
: Could you please provide a reason for your belief I don t understand in the least why box art should be there, and frankly, the lack of elaboration in the opposition is frustrating. I m currently acting based on the assumption that people are afraid to deviate from some set and easy to accomplish (although in my opininon useless) standard. Most of the arguments against are like All perspectives may not be shown in one screenshot. This may be misleading , which I find incredibley weak. I mean, is it the fact that the box art would not look good elsewhere in the article, and you feel that there is a need for including it Because I don t think that that is a suitable reason for keeping it. 18:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Sorry about that, I should have done that. Well, I feel that the box art certainly has a place in an encylopaedia article (if for no other reason than that, 18:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) :::Ah, well put. I don t see box art as anything more than advertising, and terribley uninformative. But looking at it from this point of view, I would agree, it (the logo, anyway) is something that would be good to have up front - just not in box form, if we can help it. I still believe that there should be a space for the screenshot (one that users can trust to be typical of that game). What was the old infobox design like, the one with two image slots 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From looking at the 18:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: I still fail to see how the name of the game fails to cover recognition concerns, but I ll go along with using the logo, provided that there is a place to put a central screenshot. Recognition and informativeness are two different things, and I don t believe that one belongs in something like an infobox. 18:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How does this look: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Halo:_Combat_Evolved&direction=prev&oldid=15770016] (select newer revision ). Side by side and out of context comparison: 20:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Horrible to be honest. (For the record this comment is not meant to be rude so please do not take it personally). If you were to add one anywhere it should go at the bottom, but I do not believe this to be necessary and would be better suited throughout the article. It would appear there is a pretty good consensus here to keep the box art too. 20:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, it doesn t look very appealing to me either. 22:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::...how does it look in terms of utility, not aesthetics. At the very least screenshot should be an optional field for games that have only a single screenshot available. Anyone have a better idea for an infobox
::::The already mentioned 03:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::That doesn t look bad. What do people think of adding an extra field in the template for something like that 04:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The boxart is an important element of a game. If it is not placed in the infobox, there is really no space elsewhere in the article to put it. For screenshots, obviously, this is not a problem. For the articles to be truly authorative, the box art should be included. I m personally really against removing all the box art. Perhaps we should just have a vote and get this over with. 23:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Let me elaborate. Games like 00:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::The pop culture thing seems like a good point, so I see where you re coming from. I am, however, still rather sick of having to scroll down to screenshots that may or may not be cut-scenes (or odd artistic perspectives) and of looking up games I havn t played only to find that the editor thought that the box would be more helpful to me than an actual screenshot. 03:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The problem with the 12:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::After having read all of the above (I think I went through it all), I d have to agree with Poiuytman that the box art should be in the infobox, and the screenshot in the first section after the infobox. 30 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
= IRC =
I was wondering if there is an IRC channel for this wikiproject. If not, maybe it s an idea to set one up. If one were to be set up, I think it should be set up on 00:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Dunno...I never used IRC before. But replying like this seems okay to me. 01:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) ::Maybe I ll just try to set it up and see if anyone s interested. watch this space.... 01:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::So I m not sure what the deal is with registering channels on Freenode, but I joined [irc://irc.freenode.net/WPCVG irc://irc.freenode.net/WPCVG]... feel free to join. Of course this shouldn t get in the way of proper discussion on the talk pages 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
= Watermarked screenshots from other sites =
Read this in an above discussion: : There is a number of reasons why this way is better (namely console games, where most screenies are from commercial websites and subsq. watermarked Is there any reason why we can t use watermarked screenshots If IGN watermarks a screenshot, that doesn t mean that they hold the copyright; the game developer still does. It seems to me that fair use would apply equally to any screenshot of a game, regardless of the source. -- 14:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: I don t like to use watermakered shots because it detracts from the screenshot. I hate seeing a giant logo in the bottom right-hand corner or whatever. That s just me. 14:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, fair use applies there as well. A watermarked screenshot is better than no screenshot at all, but clearly it d be better if effort was taken to find a streenshot that was not watermarked. I recently did a google search for a number of screenshots, and found that only around 5% of them were watermarked. 15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:If nothing else, using IGN s watermarked screenshots constitutes trademark infringement 
- 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: If we clearly state that we are not affiliated with IGN, would that be alright Also, is blanking out the watermark appropriate 15:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, putting a watermark or blank square in the bottom corner are both ways of modifying the screenshot, so I don t see how one would be any less appropriate. -- 17:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::What I meant to say was, is modifying an image covered under fair use Assuming that the taking of a screenshot gives the taker some additional copyright (as a photographer would have, I believe). It seems like taking a section of a document, modifying it to say something else, and then using it under fair use . 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: Like 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: Good points. I also think, considering the abundance of screenshots that are not watermarked that are available from google images, for example, there should be no need for watermarked images in the first place. 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Infobox code: white-space: nowrap =
I ve noticed the addition of style= white-space: nowrap; to each of the left-hand column cells in the Infobox. Correct me if I m wrong, but doesn t this just prevent multiple words from being wrapped within the cell If so, then it s superfluous for all but Release date(s) , since everything else uses a one-word noun. -- 04:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Not necessarily. For unknown reasons it was wrapping the (s) for all that apply in Internet Explorer. I can t remember if this was solved prior to the no-wrap though. It s not really hurting anything so I d leave it for the moment. 05:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
= Arcade Game Infobox =
Not to intentionally divert attention from this project s infobox, but extra opinions are desperately needed at 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:It seems that nobody has taken much notice. Regardless, there s a poll currently up to determine the inclusion of the two fields in the Infobox. Since the Arcade WikiProject doesn t have nearly as many members as the CVG one, extra opinions would be very welcome. -- 7 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
::It seems you re all in agreement on what to do there. I haven t read the whole discussion you had on it so I won t vote, but it seems to me that the notes field you have in the infobox is not necessary. Anything that would go in there should go in the article. But it seems you re all in agreement about this. 8 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
= archive =
This page really needs to be archived again. It s getting ridiculously long. 28 June 2005 17:15 (UTC) :Done. Still overweight, but some of the discussions aren t closed so we ll have to deal with it for now. I do believe that the Infobox Picture arguments in favor subsections should be just flat-out deleted since they re just redundant of the discussion. June 28, 2005 17:31 (UTC) ::I do not agree to their deletion, I think they serve to summarize the agruments presented very well. This is a talk page, so I don t see any need to delete any content placed into it. The next archival will clean it up, as soon as we get the issue resolved. 29 June 2005 00:18 (UTC) :I added the headers of archive 3 and 4 to this page. This probably isn t necessary but makes locating the archive with info you are looking for easier. I also made the archive information the first entry in the table of contents. This may be better if we are going to continue archiving how we currently do. Feel free to revert my change though, if you think the archive should be before the table of contents. I just think it looks better there and I ve seen other pages archived similarly. -- June 30, 2005 20:46 (UTC) ::My only problem with listing is that after a while it begins to take up a ton of space itself just explaining whats in the article. For now, I think we re good, but in the future we may want to think of perhaps just listing the archives at the top and making it so that the TOC on those archived pages is at the top (similar to this) for easier finding of discussions. June 30, 2005 20:50 (UTC)
= Wikiproject and Wikiportals =
29 June 2005 06:52 (UTC)
in one or more of the top-level Portal groups:
...Which will then coordinate with in the primary namespace. As you can see, there are WikiProjects that have yet to form..
Please think about this Whole schema - whole schema and how Wikiportal/Computer and video games will look in the main namespace. This will become known as the The Wikipedia Verb.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Your friends at 29 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)
=Infobox color=
Would anyone object to changing the light blue background in the infobox to #eeeeee IMO, this looks much better. 2 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
: I would. I see no problem with the current color. July 2, 2005 00:22 (UTC)
:: The blue fields are basically in the infobox because originally the entire infobox was blue. It looked nice then, but the blue doesn t go well with the gray that was added later. All gray is much cleaner; see the 2 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
:::It blends into the background too much. It s almost as like the infobox isn t there. July 2, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
:I don t really care at the moment, as far as color goes. I do on the other hand have a problem with the changes you made to the fields on the left. That s another topic altogether, though. July 2, 2005 04:18 (UTC)
::Sorry, just experimenting (I still have an issue with those parenthesized s s Actually, couldn t this be solved by using the if defined command and allowing either developer = or developers = , etc - 2 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
:::I d have to play with it all again, I don t recall and I could have sworn there was supposed to be some optional stuff for templates in Wiki1.5, but maybe I m confusing that with a future version. I don t really have a problem with developed by and published by (so long as they fit without doing any adjustments to the template). Those seem alright. Released ; however, is one which has been discussed a lot - being past tense. A lot of infoboxes such as a good number of July 2, 2005 04:37 (UTC)
::::Good point. 2 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
:I m testing an all-gray version at Doom (I ve also previewed it on a couple of other pages). I think it looks excellent, and I don t agree at all that it blends into the background too much. By the way, here are two (variously silly) ways to address the plural issue with nested templates (and I still think all plural would work well):
:* vs
:* vs
: -
::Why is it bigger than Infobox CVG I don t mind the color,but I can t agree on the plural stuff at this point. If you want to change developers and publishers as I stated above to ___ by (so long as you don t have to resize the infobox), then I m fine with that. July 2, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
:::Bad markup :) - 2 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
:I ve gotta agree with July 2, 2005 19:51 (UTC)
::The box takes up 1/3rd of the screen. Nobody is going to miss that. The infobox should be clearly visible/easy to find (it is), but should not distract from the article itself, and should blend in with the display style around it. The gray box is much better in all these respects. 2 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
:For the record, the 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
::True, but I m just used to the CVG infobox, that s all. July 4, 2005 15:48 (UTC)
=Goomba=
It s just a minor character, like that met character in the the Mega Man series. :It s also a well written July 6, 2005 05:02 (UTC) :I agree with K1Bond007. In fact, it looks like an excellent example of what an excellent article looks like. 6 July 2005 05:06 (UTC) :On second thought, it does look good and seems to be a PERFECT example of the quality of work that this project should produce. 6 July 2005 05:15 (UTC) Fine, you win. Game over for me. There, you happy 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC) *Please, don t imitate and don t mock me. I was just contributing. It looks like I was wrong about the article **I m sorry. I thought you were a vandal. I ve struck it out. 6 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)
= Infobox example =
Right now Grim Fandango is the example for the infobox. However it is not filled out very well. For example the release date just says 1998 . I think the 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC) :The problem with the FFVII infobox is that it goes into too much detail. Grim Fandango suits better as an example , while FFVII goes as an ideal . By placing such a extended infobox, we could be giving the idea that it must be that extended in all cases. Anyway, we should point to some good infoboxes in the section. 7 July 2005 11:13 (UTC) ::Yeah, I agree with July 7, 2005 14:53 (UTC)
= How are vg characters categorized =
Are they categorized by last name or first name I ve been going by last name. -- :Wikipedia generally does it by last name. July 8, 2005 07:12 (UTC)
=Added Split Personalities=
I dont know if I should post here, but I ve removed the Request for split personalities, I added the article here -> Split_Personalities_%28computer_game%29. Just telling you all, plus any help adding info. chopping and changing would be appreciated. Thanks GL3N
= Little problem in the snk characters section =
I ve been sorting the
hm. After seeing the edits and the user made and the
= Deletion of RPG characters. =
As part of the , it has been suggested that all RPG characters that do not have a basis for existence in a book or other offline medium should be deleted. I suspect this was well-intentioned effort but seems unreasonably broad. Since this would seem to call for the elimination of all or nearly all articles for Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy and most likly could be expanded into several other game series. I figure that this community needs to be made aware of the impact of this proposal. Voting is also up for this proposal.
See: . -- 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:I urge everyone to vote against this proposal. ) 05:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
We should rewrite this proposal. The author, I believe, had good intent and has a good point with the addition of non-notable and vanity MMO accounts. I m not sure if they re still accepting proposals at CSD, but it looks like they are. So as a starting point, I suggest: All avatars or personal accounts in a MMORPG where notability is not established. or something like that. I don t play MMO, but I imagine there is the potential for some legendary avatars out there that would be worthy of a Wikipedia entry. What do you say 05:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC) :Theres a pretty good one already listed at 05:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
= GameRankings (or similar) =
Would it make sense to add 12:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC) : No, I don t think so. Game rankings are subjective and POV, and 12:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC) ::There are lots of web sites which rate games, hence suggesting a link to Game Rankings (which has an aggregate score, and a list of reviews) rather than an individual site. The music infobox template (e.g. on 16:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC) :::Becuase there are so many sites that rate games, how do you propose we choose which site(s) to use To me, its still too subject and reviews are mostly POV...and yes the infobox has an area for reviews ..but that doesn t mean it should :) And as you have said, the scores are POV. -- 16:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC) ::::Sorry for taking a couple of days to reply to this, I didn t see it in amongst the other edits. Game Rankings is a collection of a lot of reviews for various games. As such, linking to Game Rankings is not endorsing one reviewer s opinion, but rather giving a range of opinions and an overall score taking all of the reviews into account. It isn t the same as linking to a single review, which I would not want to do. -- 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC) : I usually add reviews to some articles, from IGN or GameTab, and they go in the ==External links== section. 18:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC) :: Yeah, 18:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC) :: Although it s only an external link, the problem with IGN links is the fact that it is a single POV. Usually this is not an issue, but certain games such as 15:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ::: I think this is actually worth considering. We show ESRB and ELSPA ratings, which could be said to be subjective, and I don t think that s considered POV. I believe this could work, as long as there s a nice little external link icon like the music infobox has. Or at least a link to a 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ::::I have no problem with linking reviews, although I believe if you link something like IGN you should at least link another well-known reviewing site as well to keep the links from being slanted. GameRankings by itself would be fine, however. The reviews, IMHO, should be placed under External links, not the infobox. 16:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC) :::::That is one thing I do agree with, the Infoboxes should be saved for factual information. If you are going to link to reviews, it needs to be under external links. -- 16:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC) :::Wouldn t it be a fact that a certain number is the average score given by multiple sites Plenty of articles already mention what many gamers appear to think of games, this would seem at least more factual than that. -- 17:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) :::Actually, after giving it some more thought, it probably would be inappropriate. -- 12:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If we do get a general agreement as to whether to link or not, and which site to link to, it would be a good idea to have some general stock link text IMO; e.g. [http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/250533.asp Collection of reviews for Deus Ex ]. And yes, I do only bring this up because that s the best link text I can come up with... -- 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC) : Thats not a bad idea either, Dave! -- 17:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
=Moving Hammer Bro.=
Is there a gaming-related page where general notices can be posted Or is this the place (If it isn t, please forgive me . . . .)
I m hoping a few more folks will weigh in on moving the article 02:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
= Cheats/Level codes =
Should those be included in the articles about a specific game I think we should leave this area for the dedicated cheat databases and only include general information about the games. See 16:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC) :Articles should give a broad overview of the game, not how to play the game . That sort of thing should be at Wikibooks, see 16:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC) ::Well, I have edited the article in question and removed the codes, but the changes are always reverted by 00:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC) :::I ll keep an eye on it. 00:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC) ::::I m thinking it might be a good idea add the 09:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) :::::Good idea. We should probably add that to the part on the project page about guides etc. 20:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
= Series pages - standardization =
I ve noticed an inconsistency in the naming of various video game series. Sometimes, these articles will have the -series suffix on their titles:
*The Legend of Zelda series *Metroid series *Quake series *Unreal series *Jagged Alliance series
This might be done so games like The Legend of Zelda and Metroid can keep their article titles. However, other articles omit the -series, and use plain titles for the titles:
*Final Fantasy *Dance Dance Revolution *Castlevania *Metal Gear *The Elder Scrolls *Gradius
For these series, if the name is shared with an individual game in the series, it is renamed to something like Final Fantasy (video game) or Metal Gear (video game).
Does anyone think it would be wise to standardize the series titles, so they all have the same naming scheme I would think that most readers would more interested in the series information when they search for a title. And if they aren t, they can quickly navigate to the individual game article from the series. Opinions -- 23:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:Personally I like having the series bit in the title. So I would be for moving Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy series . However this is quite subjective. Standardisation seems like a good plan, though I m afraid there will be quite a bit of opposition from people who have been maintaining these articles if we come along and say they should move the article. 23:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with you, Poiuytman, and would rather see series article just go by the name of the series, and tag individual game articles with (video game) or whatever where appropriate. But, as Jacoplane says, trying to force consensus on the issue is going to be difficult. – 00:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
::If this were to come to a vote, it would be best to notify each of these articles talk pages (as many series pages as we could find) to let them know it s going on. That way, it would be decided by the consensus of all the editors of those pages, rather than just the members of this WikiProject. -- 00:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::Also, if a consensus was reached, we wouldn t be forcing the naming scheme on these pages. It d simply be a suggestion to the editors of the articles. It could then possibly be worked into 00:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::After some thought, I ve decided that they should be standardized to minimize confusion, but I don t care which way we go ..just that it happens. Organization is my middle name! -- 02:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
= problem with vandalism =
a dude with aol ips: 205.188.117.14
205.188.117.68
205.188.117.10
217.85.138.200
64.12.116.203
152.163.101.6
152.163.100.203
keeps on unsorting the capcom and snk character sections. He keeps on removing the last name for sorting in the categories. Is there anyone that help keep an eye out for the two sections It takes a while to resort. -- :I ll try to check on it every now and then. 02:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
he did it again at street fighters character page. -- ::If this is gonna continue, maybe you should talk to an admin. 14:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
= Simulator games vs. God-games =
The article about Computer and video game genres#Simulation lists both
I propose to form two categories: Simulator computer games for flight, space and other vehicle simulator games, and God games [http://dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Simulation/God_Games/] for The Sims, Populous, SimCity and the like. Comments -- 13:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, I agree with you that there should be 2 categories. Just simulation as a genre is kind of broad. 14:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC) ::The problem is that games like the Sims are referred to as simulation games in the press and in popular language. They simulate human social situations, whereas the other games simulate how a machine works. Of course, one could say that games like Call of Duty are simulations of war. We should be careful in Wikipedia of deviating from the language used in popular culture, even if it makes no sense. Is a game like the Sims very similar to populous, in terms of gameplay I don t think so, yet they are both god games. 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC) :::That just makes simulation game ambigious, which in Wikipedia is usually dealt with disambiguation pages or notions. The disambiguation should point to 18:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC) ::::I m afraid I don t get what your use of Simulator computer games instead of Simulation computer games achieves in terms of disambiguation. 20:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:IMO, the whole page is sketchy and could use a lot of work. But the simulation part is indeed the worse of them all - it almost goes as far as saying that Falcon is somewhat related to Sim City, for instance, while God games are related to the strategy genre and simulator is often only used with flight/military sims. Other offenders are racing ( kart racing game neglects there are actual kart driving games), sports (lacks depth) and interactive movies. 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Below is a quick scetch for the category structure. Edit as you see fit. God games should propably be their own category or a subset of strategy games. -- 17:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
= Why is the tekken characters category up for deletion =
Christie monterio is also up for deletion. Anyone want to help out for the voting to kepp them -- *yeah, i ll vote against it, just tell me where to go. -- 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
**Seriously though, I think that these articles are of very poor quality. Maybe we should merge them all into an article called 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) ***Well there s 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) **Actually I think the VfD I listed above are obsolete, new VfD is here: 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)= Pruning participants =
Should we be removing inactive participants For example, 21:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC) :Yes, to clean up the list of people who ve left Wikipedia. I think there should be a certain time after which we prune. 21:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC) :sounds like a good plan-- 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC) :One thought- what about semi-active participants For example, I have done hundreds of minor CVG edits (such as categorization,) but am not terribly active in discussions, etc. 21:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC) :I d rather just leave it alone. Those people may return and I fear that by removing names that you d in actuality be creating a requirement for a voluntary WikiProject/encyclopedia. 22:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC) :But do we really want half the names on the list to be inactive users If it were only one or two, I doubt it would be a big deal, but there does seem to be a bit of clutter of inactive users. 22:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, but nothing since November 2004 Should remove 22:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC) Here is what I ve found (all of these are questionable, ) but some haven t been inactive long enough to remove IMO)
:Maybe we can make a subsection and move inactive people under there. 08:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ::That might be the best way to do it. 16:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
= Improvement Drive =
I nominated 16:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC) *I can help out with AC and LttP, can t believe I haven t taken a look at the AC page yet. -- 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC) **I m trying to get rid of the lists, but can you think of any single way to turn the list of dates into paragraph format >.>; -- 16:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC) ***The release dates I say move them to the infobox and either mention one or none in the article. Let s move any more discussion to the AC talk page. -- 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *I can help out with Lttp. Also, I am working with the 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC) **Does your improvement drive have an end date or is it open-ended -- 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ***Open ended.-- 18:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ****I d help with Final Fantasy VI, but unfortunately, I probably wouldn t be able to add more than the next FF fan. And, by dates, I meant holidates *chortle*. -- 23:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
= CVG sub stub categories =
I ve added 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Well to start off, the 13:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
= New template =
is meant to be a subset of and is for video and computer games under production. Currently the template places the game tagged to 17:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) :An article tagged with is placed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Future_products Category:Future products], so placing articles tagged with in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Future_games Category:Future games] would indeed increase the consistency between templates and their usage.
: 19:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC). :moved most games to the new category. 21:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC) :also, I agree with the category rename. 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) ::I copied the content of . Why is this
::Thank you for your assistance,
:: 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC). :::It s just cache. After the individual articles are edited once, it ll refresh or it might do it on its own after so long. What was the problem with Computer and video games in production I like that one a lot better than Future game . It s not like it has to match product and event. I also don t really like (and find it comical really) that you guys state this shouldn t contain vaporware yet the biggest one of them all, Duke Nukem Forever, is listed. There are others as well including STALKER, which at this point is considered vaporware. I don t see the reason to not have these games in the category so long as we know they re in production. 23:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::I removed the notice in question since you are quite right in stating that though both Duke Nukem Forever and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl may be vaporware, they are still officialy in development. 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC).
Note that 12:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia uses lots of language that s not really encyclopedic. 19:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Should be noted that 15:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
= Awards section =
I believe that an Awards section should be added to any games that can apply. There would be four types of awards:
Thoughts -- 13:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC) :Not sure an entire section is warranted. For example, 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC) ::I meant award. Like EGM s Gold Award. -- 14:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC) ::I dunno. As long as it doesn t take up alot of space, like when Half-Life 2 won a whole bunch, but they got pruned cause the list was way too long. Also, I think the 15:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC) #Missing multiple Katamari Damacy awards.
#It doesn t cover E3 awards.
#On an unrelated note, there s an argument over whether or not Cranky Kong should be labelled as Donkey Kong (it s been shown that if Cranky Kong was ever officially DK *which has never been proven to be so*, it is no longer so). -- 15:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC) ::Anyway, it wouldn t be as packed if we decided what magazines and websites are notable and what aren t. -- 23:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
= Wario improvement =
Can someone look over 23:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC) :You should post this kind of question in 23:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC) ::I didn t think that it was big enough to warrant a Peer Review request. -- 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC) :::Well it s been nominated for the 00:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
= Nintendo games category =
Regarding 15:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC) :They published it, and own both the specific game and the franchise. Miyamoto also superised it. -- 15:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
= Categorisation: open source games =
I noticed that 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :*Computer and video games :**Computer and video games by platform :***PC games :****Open source games :That seems about right to me. Anyone object or have a better spot 16:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC) ::Some games are highly portable, beyond the PC arena - I m thinking in particular of non-graphical games such as 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :::Personally I would put it right under Computer and video games, to make it more future-proof. Seems a bit limiting to just stick with the PC as platform. 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::::True enough. I changed it. 19:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
= Help from SHIT =
Hi, this is article), and would like to continue to do so in the future or collaborate on new things. - 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *I think we d probably all appreciate the help if you agree to consider changing your acronym. 03:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
= Criticism section =
A followup to Awards - I suggest that we put any universal critisisms into any article that applies. Example ( Final Fantasy Tactics Advance ):
==Criticisms==
A common criticism of this game is the law system, which is both liked and disliked. Some argue that it keeps the game fresh and original, while others complain that it caused problems, such as getting into a fight with all animals with a law protecting them.
That s a half-assed attempt, and hopefully all of them would be better. Comments -- 12:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC) :Shouldn t criticisms be relevantly indicated in the sections concerned (e.g. in the Gameplay section for complaints related to gameplay), instead of having them all regrouped in one section Your idea, though, does bring to mind the usual structure of video game reviews, where in most magazines, criticisms of the reviewed game are listed at the end of the article (i.e. in the last paragraph or two). I m not against the idea, as long as references are noted, and if applicable, linked to. 15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC).
= ESRB ratings templates =
I ve started on some ESRB ratings templates, currently in my user space. Please feel free to contribute.
= IMDB links =
IMDB doesn t seem to be the best source to link. It doesn t provide anymore info than an IGN link, and some games don t even have IMDB links. -- 18:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, they aren t the best place for game info, except when tring to find out the voice actors really. 19:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC) ::Which is the only time I use it. For games such as 21:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
= CVG offshoots =
I was considering that we make offshoots of Featured article and Improvement drive. It would be a little small in them, but it d be nice to have a place, say for ID, where you can put several articles that need to be improved, but aren t GCotW-compatible. Plus, we DO have GCotW and Peer Review, after all. -- 19:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC) :I m not sure we need another collaboration besides the GCOTW and Peer review. What do you mean by having an offshoot of featured article We already have a place where we keep 19:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC) ::Okay, but come on, the CVGID would work perfectly. -- 19:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I ve taken the liberty of making it ( 01:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC) ::::Can t say that I believe CVG needs it s own IDrive in addition to Peer review and GCOTW, but that said, give it a shot I suppose. 02:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::IDrive, Peer Review and GCotW are all different. IDrive is made for getting people together to improve non-stub articles, Peer Review is advice given to improve an article, and GCotW is made to improve stubs. -- 02:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
= Infobox CVG } =
I d like to make the image optional via this code: } | Infobox CVG/image | }}}. The reason for this is that the Image cell does not completely collapse when there is no image inside of it. I have already made the subpage 04:06, 2005 August 11 (UTC) *As I previously noted on your talk page, I really don t see much of a use for this. The infobox collapses (although yes, not entirely) when an image isn t used. It looks fine the way it is. 04:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I don t really see a need for it either. 16:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
= Images, screenshots & fair use rationale =
I ve uploaded a lot of box covers, screenshots, etc thinking that providing the right fair use copyright tag ( describe that a rationale has to be given for each image to be used in an article.
We ve run up against this at the ).
I m thinking we should talk about this on the Wikiproject CVG page, since most newcomers are very unlikely to know of this requirement (I know I only found out it not too long ago) and going back to fix every image later is a pain in the neck.
Still, I find it rather strange that who is very strict about this as he seems to raise the issue whenever he can. It s probably a good idea though since it will improve the legal status of wikipedia. So: #Do people feel we need something about this on the project page #What should it be Should we be providing common rationales so it s easy to copy paste 19:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:The rationale is essentially the same for all video game screenshots, so it should simply be added to 19:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ::I guess I m kind of in the same boat here as Fredrik. The rationale for something such as game-screenshot should be explained in the template. Yesterday or perhaps the day before 19:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC) ::I was hitherto ignorant of the fair use rationale guideline was concerned, and am of the same opinion as Fredrik, the rationale being essentially the same for all video game screenshots, it should be appended to the Game-screenshot template (though perhaps an inclusion option should be available in the rare case of the rationale differing from the default one). 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC). :::Yes, fair use rationale should be applied to templates. I think it s on the gamecover template already, we d just have to draft something up for screenshot. Maybe we could use the same thing. 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) :See also: the 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:The problem with the current tag templates is that they are worded as a blanket permission, when in fact fair use needs to be evaluated on an article-by-article basis.
:There s some effort underway to fix the problems with the templates being too broad in coverage, but not specific enough in reasoning: see for the current effort. Keep in mind that the template will only cover use of the screenshot/box cover in the article on the subject . For situations like the use of 23:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
::Personally I d be more worried about the legal status of the lyrics in that article. 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :By the way, if please do have a look at the 00:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :I copied the fair use rationale from the template and appended it to the template, as was agreed adequate in the above discussion. 08:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC). ::This looks good to me. I ve put in a request for feedback @ 00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this is silly. All video games are too new and too commercial to have public domain images, so they re all going to be fair use with the same rationale. ) 01:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC) :Fine, but if we re going to run into this every time we try to get an article certified as a featured article, don t you think we should have covered this in advance In any case, even if what you say is true, there s no harm in protecting the legal status of wikipedia. 01:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::What you re doing is fine, I just think it s silly for others to apply fair use rationale stuff to video game articles. ) 01:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
= New WP:CVG participant =
Hi! I ve added myself to the WP:CVG participant s list at WolfenSilva s kind 18:54, 2005 August 14 (UTC) :Greetings, and welcome to 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC).
: Welcome to Wikipedia (and our WikiProject), Sitearm. It s a pleasure to meet new contributors. If you have any questions at all, don t hesitate to ask here or on 20:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)|
|