Talk:Atomic Heart

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atomic Heart article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Atomic Heart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1: 3 months

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Not mentioned: "technically pacifist" gameplay

Basically, every enemy in the game is a robot (cue cutschenes, where P-3 is using his glove, that has a plethora of less-lethal uses; the article needs some info on that. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that mention it in detail, sure. Otherwise, it seems like too gameguide-like stuff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, exactly this. Do reliable sources take note of this? And use that label? It's only worth including if they do. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bioshock

@Soetermans: What's wrong with comparing this game to Bioshock? All the sources do. Kurzon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Dude, if you don't want to talk, I'm just going to go ahead and push my edits. Kurzon (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kurzon, as you can tell from my contributions, I haven't been particularly active since our blocks! Like I said previously, I don't see the point in mentioning it. BioShock is a first-person shooter with role-playing elements, Atomic Heart is one. If it should be mentioned, the reception section would be the place for that. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After one message, you waited a little over a day and call that "attempts"? We were both blocked for edit warring, are you quite sure this is the way to go? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the one thing Atomic Heart has that Bioshock doesn't is dialogue choices, but even then you don't get to role-playing in the traditional sense of the term. In fact I am going to delete any mention of role-playing elements. Kurzon (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like talking to a brick wall. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone coming into the discussion from outside, I think Soetermans is correct here. Reception is the proper place for such a comparison, and putting it in the gameplay section presents as fact what is ultimately a matter of opinion. You may think the game is like Bioshock or you may not think so, which makes definitively claiming it is like Bioshock problematic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Soetermans that it should not be in gameplay in section. Comparison with BioShock can be put in the reception section with proper attribution to the person who made the comparison. Gameplay section should describe how the game actually plays, and "heavily inspired by BioShock" doesn't actually provide me with any information if I am unfamiliar with BioShock. What you have added is also original research since they are not backed by reliable sources, and your gameplay section is objectively worse than the previously one. Comparing each gameplay elements to other games is also, trivial and therefore, not needed at all. OceanHok (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. There's a place to mention comparisons or inspirations, and it's not the Gameplay section. WP:VGLAYOUT actually says to mention inspirations in the Development section, but I could see an argument for Reception as well. Woodroar (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

verifying references

Hello Maryann Kincer! You used a new reference that expects a citation named ":02" in your recent edits, but there is no citation named ":02" in this article. That produces an error. It seems likely that you meant to use ":0", so I made a speculative fix to use that reference. Thing is, the citation is offered for a claim that the publishers have no ties to Putin, but the ":0" reference doesn't say exactly that. Are you able to provide a correct reference to support the material that you've added to the article? For now, the error is fixed, but I think that citation fails verification. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for noticing! Yes, the statement is from an old version of the article, it had a link to escapistmagazine.com attached to it, the link was indeed lost during editing (I just added it back). In the article it's quite precisely defined that there is only a close circle of people who can communicate with Putin - and these are not the owners of the company. Maryann Kincer (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks a lot better, now. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]