Jump to content

Talk:Master of Magic (2022 video game)

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Master of Magic (2022 video game); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

On it. — LlywelynII 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Article was new enough and remains long enough [5k char.]; QPQ done; only Earwig pings remain properly styled quotes; ALT2 is by far the best hookwise and previous ding against its 'in-universeness' seems poorly taken: it's a video game in the real world, the card game is in the real world, and the mechanics involved are discussed at a meta level not an in-universe one. Terse enough; interesting enough to some; but not remotely supported by the provided citation. It isn't remotely supported by the other two citations provided in the article either. SJM says it 'seemed' like a ripoff in the reviewer's entirely subjective opinion; GM:DGMST&P quotes a 3rd game's help files which just repeats other people who subjectively feel it 'supposedly borrowed' the system; the Italian review—in Google translation—again is just saying the reviewer feels there's a 'close resemblence'. None of those say what the hook or article claims they do. That needs to get fixed in the article before we can do a new hook. (ALT0 is puffy as mentioned; ALT1 is in universe as mentioned; ALT3 is vague as mentioned & slightly off topic. The point would be how they're special, not that a 1990s 4Xer got compared with Civilization. They all did.) — LlywelynII 18:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII, Addressing the "not remotely supported by the provided citation" (I'd argue the cited source is very remotely related...), here are additional sources I'll add to the article in a sec if they are not present there: [1]: "To all this, we must add a system of magic and spells that closely resembles Magic: The Gathering (the schools of magic are in fact the same), with all the potential that a similar system can bring" (note: MT from Italian), [2]: "It featured a color-based magic system influenced by Magic: The Gathering, which had just launched the year before" (but this is a reference ot the original game). So the latter arguably is not ideal, but I think the Italian, which I vaguely remember from writing the article and which I think was the original ref for that claim, should do? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The language is less of an issue. English is preferred but not required.
The problem is neither of those are actually WP:RS for the point being discussed. They're just the personal opinions of the extremely non-authoritative reviewers based (as far as we know) on nothing substantive. To say it was actually based on the card game—with all the attendant liability for royalties that would be involved if they didn't already have a formal legal agreement of some kind—you'd need an actual source quoting the creators of the game or somehow otherwise actually proving it (e.g. by finding programming notes about MTG in the game code). Otherwise, the text 100% needs to be changed to use some version of seems, was likely, is considered, is widely believed in the article for the accuracy and legal reasons just mentioned. Ping me when that's fixed.
For the hook, there's apparently a minor rule about DYK needing to use black-letter nonsubjective facts that was recently used against suggested hooks for my article on a poorly attested Roman. Personally, as long as the phrasing for ALT2 is changed to something accurately inexact, I do think it's pretty interesting and wouldn't mind approving it. It's a black-letter fact that some people are of that opinion. I also see 100% of your reviewers are calling the original game a classic so Morgan's criticism of the original hook (ALT0) doesn't seem well taken. That said, it is another example of a black-letter fact of subjective opinion. xD I don't mind, but the hook promoter might & you might get pulled back into this just when you thought you were out.
Go ahead and emend the phrasing in the article. If you like ALT0, just ping me back and we'll use that. If you like ALT2, just gimme an ALT3 that uses similarly hedged phrasing. If you wanna use a new ALT3 that's more bulletproof, I'll come take a look at it. Lemme know and sorry this has dragged on so long. The article work is very appreciated. — LlywelynII 05:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII Ok, but I think the current wording ("inspired") is pretty neutral and accurate. If you'd have any concrete suggestions on how to reword this and/or ALT2, I am all ears. It's not that I don't want to heed your advice, it is that I don't fully follow it. For the record, I haven't played the remake, but I played the original and MtG, and I think inspired is correct. MoM copied the idea of five schools of magic, kept them thematically very similar, and for a clincher, copied names for a several dozen spells. Effects, of course, had to be somewhat differnet, since the mechanics of both games are not really similar. As for ALT0, I am a bit confused which hook is ALT0 right now? By ALT0, do you mean the original hook? "faithful remake" one? I think a lot of the reviews pick up on that fact, although as I said, I haven't played the remake, so I can't speak to that myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus This isn't your fault but this is the third time Wiki's eaten my reply in a glitch. Extremely short version: Your citations aren't WP:RS for that point. The game magazine reviewers have no knowledge, evidence, or authority. As such, you don't actually know the game copied anything from anyone and, to say they did, you need an actual quote from an actual programmer; you need something equivalent in the computer code; or you need hedged language: believed, seems, likely, &c. The last one is the easy one. Yes, like I said above, ALT0 is just another way of talking about the original hook. — LlywelynII 15:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII I understand, but inspired is not copied. Copying is copyright infringement, being inspired is not. So I don't understand the problem with the current wording? In either case, we can promote ALT0 while discussing this ALT2 more, or just drop it and go with ALT0 if you think it's not worth to continue this topic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Inspired is there's an actual connection. The article currently has zero (0) WP:RELIABLE SOURCES that establish that. Random reviewers with zero (0) evidence and no knowledge or authority don't count. The article needs to be changed to more accurate phrasing about that and then yeah we can just go along with ALT0 unless the promoter minds. — LlywelynII 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII, I am sorry, I don't understand your first sentence above. Could you be bold and change the wording to the one you think is acceptable? I am struggling with going beyond what we have now, because I still think inspired is neutral enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it won't affect the first hook, yeah, I think that's fine. Sorry for all the trouble. Edit: Piotrus Done. Something like that was what I was talking about. There's no evidence so far that it was actually inspired by the card game, just that some reviewers feel that it must have been. You obviously agree with them but you have sourcing for their feelings (and yours) but no reliable sourcing for the actual truth of the matter. — LlywelynII 05:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 should be good to go. Multiple reviewers call it precisely a "classic", which indicates pretty broad consensus on the point within this part of the gaming community. The faithful remake bit is backed within the sources both by the developers saying that was their aim and reviewers saying—for better and for worse—that's essentially what was produced. OP was right that, within the fandom of a classic game, remakes being faithful is hugely important and, within gaming more generally, developers considered to remain faithful to what fans loved about previous games builds goodwill even when people otherwise don't like either game themselves. Promoter: If you feel that hook is too subjective or promotional despite the sourcing and the fact it's a commercial product, the original editor is obviously patient and good natured but has reached the point of long-suffering. If this turns out not to be appropriate after 4 months of good faith waiting and tinkering, please do point out 2 or 3 ideas for what you'd want instead; the editor could then polish one and ping me to get this over and done. — LlywelynII 05:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Magic: The Gathering

[edit]
Moved from my talk page:

Thanks. You probably will want to adjust the wording in the original Master of Magic game. For what's it is worth, I am totally fine with your rewording, and I am not even sure the word 'many' is justified - most don't discuss this, it's a bit obscure trivia that folks occasionally comment on in the depts of the nerdnet. But as someone who played the original and the card game, yes, I think it is pretty "obvious". Six similar colors of magic wouldn't be a givaway although it's a big hint (five colors + colorless sixt color, to be exact), but they copied a number of spell names (I can't find any place with anyone counting them, actually, so I am not sure how many, to be frank - several to several dozen, IIRC). If it walks like a duck... And you are right, there are very few (too few) reliable sources for that. This is probably not reliable. This certainly isn't, but just driving the point that those in the know, well, know :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: You're welcome. There's still nothing (so far) that is a WP:RS that it was in fact actually borrowed but I think after the first half dozen sources from major reviewers in the article and in the DYK and now additional informal sourcing, you've established that it's a very widespread belief among players and reviewers. We can't state that it actually happened; we shouldn't use it in the DYK hook; like you're saying, most might be inappropriate where many is accurate; but I think it's fair to say there is a general belief among many people and there's no need to WP:OVERCITE to drive that in any deeper than you already have, at least until someone comes in with countersourcing to suggest this is controversial in some way unmentioned by your copious references. — LlywelynII 05:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More informal stuff: Talk:Master_of_Magic#Magic:_The_Gathering_similarities?. Apparently featuring me, over a decade ago... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Master_of_Magic_(2022_video_game)&oldid=1204923492"