Jump to content

Talk:2016 in video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxenfree

[edit]

Guys, I'm not the best of editors, So, I'll leave that to you. But, There's a game called oxenfree that will be released on win and Xbox January 15th. So, I think it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo8Skylar (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxenfree has been added. Lordtobi (✉) 12:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your time. Leo8Skylar (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of MLG

[edit]

As added by AdrianGamer, MLG was acquired by Activision Blizzard. However, it says January 4, although some sources claim that MLG was purchased in late December (e.g. this Polygon report), only that the purchase was confirmed by Activision Blizzard on given date. Though I do not know which one applies, I'll just leave it here. Lordtobi (✉) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: I see the change you made, which clarifies it a little, but I am still wondering the announcement or the contract is taken into consideration. Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Activision confirmed that they had acquired the studio on December 21, so using the day for announcement may be more appropriate. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's World!

[edit]

Five Nights at Freddy's World (FNaF World) is coming to PC, iOS and Android on February 19th 2016! Somebody update this! [1] JastDaSkylander (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The post given is a) a primary source and b) only says "[Cawthon] [plans] to release it on February 19th on Steam, and then for Android and iPhone in the following weeks!" so it only confirms it for Microsoft Windows for given date, but is only an assumption based on hopes and might still be delayed. Unless no secondary source confirms this, it's on-hold to be added. Lordtobi (✉) 18:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that instead of reverting everything unsourced, try to find sources to support it. I know it isn't our burden but it will resolve a lot of unnecessary reverting and undoing. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the new Polygon and Eurogamer sources are enough for now, I just didn't realize that the addition to the table was with a new source, which is why I did not revert any further after Rhain explained. Lordtobi (✉) 11:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

[edit]

Any editors have their own citation preference style, and I don't think that it is something that needs to be changed. "work" field, "publisher" field, and "website" field are all correct, and we don't need to changed all of them into one style. For consistency I would go with "work". Most of them are in italic (to be consistent with their own article I guess.) AdrianGamer (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"work" and "website" are the exact same, just that "website" is the more commonly used and the one preffered by documentation and me. The "publisher" field is something different. "publisher" is for the Company that own the website given and thus publishes it (e.g. for "website" PC Gamer, it is "publisher" Future US). The reason I changed it, is that the majority (even if small majority) of cites gave "website" instead of "work", and in my opinion, it should be aligned in all refs. Also I fixed the occasion, in which you put "work" and "website" in the same ref, causing a double-parameter error. Lordtobi (✉) 15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordtobi: What I want to say is, citation style is not important. "Publisher" can be completely ignored as well, and that would also be fine. A FA reviewer even advised to remove all the publishers field from the article to maintain consistency. Citation style is really not important unless they are plain wrong, like having the url for the work field. Website field is definitely not the more popular one from what I have seen. Please stop systematically changing them. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For smaller articles, citation style alignment is definetly useful, but on years in video gaming, there are just too many cites to keep track of it. I agree that publisher is not always needed, but I usually implement it for the sake of having it complete. What is against your opinion, however, is your orignal edit saying that you should use work to italicize it, and changed the website parameter to a work parameter, which found disgustingly unuseful, so I just changed it once for the article. Lordtobi (✉) 15:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using the work field for gaming magazines' website (Game Informer, PC Gamer etc.) is extremely common, though if you think that website suits well as well I won't change that or stop you from using it. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"work" is not that common compared to "website", but since they are the exact same thing, this can be disregarded. Just having it alike in an article is in favor of many people, including me. Lordtobi (✉) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Videoball edit war

[edit]

Please see related section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Official sites?. It looks like several editors are sitting at (or already past) 3RR. This should be getting discussed here on this talk page now. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The official website was last updated in 2015 (hence "©MMXV" tag at the bottom); and there are exactly zero proven-to-be reliable sources that state such a thing. The nearest I could find is this Hardcore Gamer article, which states 2016. Another article from BagoGames (they are not listed at WP:VG/RS, so I'm not sure how reliable they are exactly) states something about August. The release seems to be much of nothing right now to me. Lordtobi (✉) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any real interest in this, just organizing a bit since it came to WP:VG/RS. Just want to note that copyright icons at the bottom of a page do not indicate the last time a page was updated. The original source used was an interview from GDC here. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason i'm reverting this edits because official sites are not considered reliable sources for this article. Not that i seen any titles with official sites has a sources. This articles kinda demand sources from this site mentioned Reliable Sources. Why can't we just wait for a source with concrete release date?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.136.44 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support waiting a few months as well. I don't think having the list filled with primary sources/unknown games (because reliable sources don't care about them) is appropriate. The list would most likely become unmanageable if this happens. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If it was supported. I would have flooded titles with sources from official sites has sources :P. --117.192.136.44 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the full history of the Year in video gaming articles, but the hidden note at the top of the page states:
Only games with official announcement should be listed. Don't add unconfirmed releases here. It has to be official, announced and unveiled by the publisher/developer.
From a bird's eye view, a date on the official webpage is about as "official, announced and unveiled" as can be. It can always be removed or moved if it proves wrong. Otherwise, the hidden note should be updated to include that the announcement MUST be covered in secondary sources. The second to last bullet of the note sort of covers it but I'd call it vague. (Side note: That hidden notes should be converted to a talk page header, or better, into a policy similar to WP:FILMYEAR to be applied to all the Year in video gaming articles.). -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling a tad dumb, my eyes completely skipped over:
Source directly from the developer, Kickstarter, Steam community and forum source should be avoided. A secondary source from gaming journalists will be more appropriate.
Though this doesn't completely forbid it, just recommends against. At this time, consensus seems to be to leave Videoball out though. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a guideline is concerned I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Year in video gaming guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added this entry. The developer said in an interview with the Question Bus the game is coming out in May, they just don't have a release date yet. Presumably it is in cert. Also the official website says "COMING MAY 2016" I don't see why this had to cause so much drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.86.125 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because u did not add a reliable sources from one of the sites mentioned here. I don't see a site called keirmiron here. Do you?. --61.1.132.193 (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look slightly further above on that page, it says that interviews are typically allowed. Not to mention that the official website is there to clarify that the release date mentioned in the interview is correct, in case there was any doubt due to its omission from WP:VG/RS. – Rhain ☔ 12:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of interview aren't desirable. If we can use official websites/interviews then we can add every games from App Stores/Steam here. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a basic criteria that the game be notable enough to have its own article for inclusion. Most "Year in X" articles do this, i.e. "no redlinks". -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; for notability, these types of interviews are undesirable, but if we're discussing reliability alone, they are typically allowed. – Rhain ☔ 14:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No red links would be a bit too harsh. Perhaps when both the developer or publisher don't have its own article we can exclude it. (We still need RS to support them) AdrianGamer (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:, @Rhain:, @Lordtobi:, @117.192.136.44: Any opinions on this? If this is the generally practice, and that it can help us control the list better, then I think this should have no problem. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that items in this list should prove notability by at least having one reliable source to proof the existence and release date of that item. It should not make a difference if the item itself or its related companies have an article or not. Example case: Enter the Gungeon did not have an article until a day after release; now imagine that Dodge Roll had not signed with Devolver: neither the game, nor the developer, would have had an article, wherefore it would have been excluded, despit its very present notability. Lordtobi (✉) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But then there are things like Death by Game Show, which only has one source. Alternatively we can reject RS that covers niche games, but that may seems to be biased and difficult to define? I sort of believe that without Devolver the game wouldn't even meet the notability guideline. I do understand your concern. Things like Soul Axiom or the Oculus titles like Chronos and Lucky's Tale are notable. Perhaps we can like, hold a discussion on what is notable and what is not every quarter? (It is not really decided by us. We make our decision based on how much RS coverage the title gets) If something is proved notable, then we put a request at WP:VG/REQ. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Death by Game Show, the game has at least two WP:VG/RS-notable reviews (five if you include IGN's in other countries), and some other sources as well. "without Devolver the game wouldn't even meet the notability guideline" - why exactly? They were reported on way before they announced their signing with Devolver, also it was just an example case why we should not exclude games of which neither themselves, nor their developers, have a Wikipedia article.
Regardless, I think that things are notable as long as they have a reliable source to go with. And that is just the problem. In an edit on 2015 in video gaming, I replaced all empty source fields with [citation needed] tags, and this now counts to 83 aka. way too much. We should focus on the reliable sources on this article to be reliable (and existant), rather than to focus on what is notable despite RS coverage. Lordtobi (✉) 10:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But then it does not solve any problem. There are a lot of video games that only have one or two articles from our list of RS. (Reviews, previews, news etc,) The list will still become excessively long.. If that is the inclusion criteria it is definitely too lenient. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, we should filter certain sources that repeatedly post about else-not-notable games, e.g. Shacknews and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. I do not believe that we should (or can) check every single entry on how many sources there are on it from various RS, and then decide wether to include it or not. Lordtobi (✉) 07:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the Steam page just launched and attatched is a news page entitled "VIDEOBALL announces an official launch date!", saying "WAIT NO LONGER: VIDEOBALL will be available for purchase July 12th on Steam! Compete to win in VIDEOBALL: a sport everyone can play." Guess that settles it? Since my access to Twitter is currently, uhm, unfunctional, I can only check for secondary sources later, but as long as that is, we might just use that announcement as a source and replace it later on? (Date is June 7, author is Eddie Caparaz) Lordtobi (✉) 17:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well *cough* here is one by 3DJuegos, although in Spanish: Action Button presenta Videoball, un juego que revoluciona el concepto del mítico Pong Lordtobi (✉) 19:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Et voilá, here is a Destructoid source that was just released: One-button sports game Videoball is releasing July 12 Lordtobi (✉) 10:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Destructoid is a RS, so this is good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AM2R (Another Metroid 2 Remake) does deserve some mention, even if it is just a fan game

[edit]

Why? How MANY fan games makes such a huge impact in the series community? How MANY fan games takes 8+ years long to get completed and are more stable and have better controller support than most "AAA" games? How many grew so popular that the company owning the IP issued MULTIPLE TAKEDOWNS, but no C&D? I know only one... 177.179.219.211 (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Daggers

[edit]

Released in Febuary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Daggers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.116.46 (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year-in-review sources

[edit]

There were a ton of year-in-review sources from just a week ago, but they're getting harder to find now. We should stockpile them here before they disappear into the search engine ether. czar 09:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2023 in video games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_in_video_games&oldid=1196720323"