Jump to content
Search

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs
Merge discussions
Other discussions
No major discussions
Featured content candidates
Good article nominations
DYK nominations
Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Shortcut: WT:VG
WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Archive index

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185

Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
Article naming talk
Sources talk
Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
Newsletter talk
Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
New articles
Popular pages
By topic, By game
Vital articles
Recognized content
Good content
Featured content
Requested articles
Task forces
Esports talk
Indie
Nintendo talk
Sega talk
Video game characters talk
Visual novels talk
WikiProject
Portal talk
Project category talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Article statistics talk
List of active editors
[edit]

I've got an unresponsive IP adding this to articles, so I figured I'd come here to see if I could get input on how to proceed, because there's a few ways.

An IP keeps adding the category Computer-related introductions in (year) to video game console articles. So, for example, adding "Category:Computer-related introductions in 2004" to the Nintendo DS article.

I suppose there's 3 ways to look at this:

  1. This is a valid category for a game console.
  2. This is an invalid category for game consoles because it would fail WP:DEFINING - the DS was not a "computer related introduction".
  3. This category itself is weirdly worded and potentially impossible to pass DEFINING for anything.

Personally, I'm at #2, but would not object to #3. I won't bother trying to figure out how to enforce #2 if #3 has consensus.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what's in the category, I'd honestly lean toward #3. This category seems to have everything from game consoles, to calculators, to Markdown, to PCI Express. So it's basically used as "technology created in [year]". I'd say it needs thoroughly redefined, or tossed 13akoors (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to yesterday, game consoles hadn't been in there. But an IP (and now a new account) keep readding faster than I can remove it, which inspired me to stop and start the discussion. But yes, it does cast quite the wide net in things included, too wide for the current wording and DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wonder if a temporary or partial block might be necessary for them to engage in communication with others and to stop obsessively adding these categories to more and more articles. Their edits are just creating more work for you, I, and other editors to clean up. As for the three ways to look at it, I'm inclined to agree with #2; I believe that video game consoles are not strictly defined as computers (save for maybe the PlayStation 3 and even that's a stretch). GSK (talk • edits) 17:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind cleaning it up, I just didn't want to get yelled for edit warring after it was clear they not interested in stopping or engaging in discussion on it. I won't object if anyone wants to take any action though, for sure. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would say the DS is a "computer-related introduction" by virtue of being a computer. But that points to the real problem with this cat-tree, which is that "computer-related" is impossibly vague and there can be disagreement on if things are computer-related, so the problem is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. ~ A412 talk! 17:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The category name is weird but it aligns with "products introduced in YYYY" categories. And i'd agree that game consoles do fall into computer products. Maybe the category should be "computing products introduced in YYYY", since at some point you can't just call something a microchip as a computer. Masem (t) 17:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, part of my opposition was the use of the word "computer" and not just "computing", but either way, if we're going that fast and loose with definitions, would just about every electronic device in existence start getting this category? Every phone, tablet, smart device, calculator, etc etc?
To me, it feels like the scope of the category should be things like computers, laptop, gaming graphics cards, things of that nature. The categories themselves that I have spotchecked have been around for a long time, it's really just recent spurt of (mis)application of the last 24 hours that seems problematic. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about a "Video game hardware introduced in YEAR" category. Then that could be a subcat of this category, then everyone's happy! (If whatever train this person is on can be satisiated by category structure). Maybe with a better name though, "Computer related introductions" is so vague and awkward. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
we certainly can do that but I feel these would be sparsely populated (4 to 5 a year), and may be overkill. Masem (t) 17:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to such a category, but changing it to this would kind of turn everything on its head - kicking out majority of the entries in the category in favor of things that someone added in the last 24 hours. I think it should be a separate category should it exist. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "computer hardware in [year]"? Definitely worded a bit too weird as-of now. I could see CPUs, etc, being in subcategories of that, but there probably aren't enough consoles introduced per year to justify a consoles-introduced-in category. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's not necessarily consensus on what to do, but there seems to be some agreement that some sort of change is needed. I'll probably try sending it to WP:CFD and see what happens. (I'll have to figure out how to bundle them and how many yearly iterations there are to bundle too.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised we don't have a category along the lines of Category:Computers introduced in 2004. The DS being directly categorized under Category:Products introduced in 2004 is ridiculous to the point of pointlessness. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Computing products" over "Computers" makes more sense if one is cataloging by year, since that would also include things like phones, tablets, graphics cards, etc. and of course video games consoles. Anything but "computer-related" because that is far too broad. Masem (t) 12:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Even computing feels overly broad to me... Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype Arcade in MAT

[edit]

on Midway Arcade Treasures theres an Arcade Game Called "Splat!" That when redirect it takes you to the Splat! (video game) from 1983, I have the MAT game and thats not the Splat its talking about


Its talking about a Prototype game with the same name


This one


https://www.arcade-museum.com/Videogame/splat


Which has the same name as the game but they're not the same GyroidGalaxian (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry what is the issue? That one game has an article and the other doesn't? What's stopping you from writing an article for the arcade game? GamerPro64 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is quite common. Especially between American and British studios in the early 80s (no one realized or cared they were sharing names). It probably doesn't have an article because coverage is much worse. I just ran through my typical resources and found nothing. If you wanted to write a Splat! (1982 video game) article, I think people would be appreciative. You'd probably have to dig through coin-op trades though. Whipmywillows (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Space Invaders

[edit]

Requesting input at Talk:Space Invaders#Removal of two low-quality sources. A consensus was reached on some parts, but Indrian and I have gone back and forth on the remaining points. He has provided more information that I requested (which I have not gone through yet), but the exchange was starting to get heated beforehand and outside perspectives would be appreciated to help reach a consensus. Thanks in advance. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Resource request: Tamagotchi instruction manuals

[edit]

I am looking to find any digitized / scanned copies of the instruction manuals for games in the Tamagotchi Connection: Corner Shop series. I'm currently working on a draft for this series, so I think having access to these manuals would be really helpful. Thank you. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technology section of video game articles

[edit]

I am simply curious about just how in-depth should a technology section for a video game article be. For instance, the section in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle goes very deeply into very technical stuff, like mentioning the exact number of hair strands, and spending lots of time discussing platform parity. I know Digital Foundry runs a lot of articles on the technical states of video games (like mentioning how many p/fps/GB they can reach), but at the same time I also felt that they are a bit WP:GAMECRUFT-y, being only tangential to the actual development and being quite hard for general readers to follow. OceanHok (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be reworked a little, to make sure we're speaking in "laymans terms" for the general audiences Wikipedia strives to write for, but overall, I think its good information to include when we actually have reliable sources verifing and covering it. (I often have to remove it more on the grounds of it being WP:OR or pulled from forums/social media type "sources".) Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's nice to have good information from an editor who clearly appears knowledgeable, especially if it's from reliable sources (and not, say Wccftech), but it should definitely be trimmed and rephrased for the layperson. I fully support your initiative to start a talk discussion to discuss the section in more detail; now it's just up to other editor/s to engage productively. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a lot of information, a rule-of-thumb you can sometimes use to ascertain what is most relevant, is to look at the human angle. Ideally, we would at least cover what decisions humans made and why, or what opinions humans hold of it. If you can say "the developer made this technological choice because...", that's useful. If you can say "reception was negative on this technological choice," that is also useful. That being said, I like seeing a lot of detail, and if it's sourced to secondary sources then humans obviously care about the information, so I like keeping stuff like that in. It may just need to be contextualized. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like others say, the main issue is probably one of accessibility, but also due weight. If the only sources for nitty-gritty details like that are developer docs or GDC presentations, it probably should be glossed further, and while Digital Foundry can be a great secondary source they're also discussing things at a level probably not appropriate for a general audience reference work. Frankly I think the GA review should have caught that the tech section is nearly incomprehensible if you aren't a hardcore gaming fan, and still hard to read even if you are ( Indiana Jones and the Great Circle makes use of Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps... what are Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps? Why should I care?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 08:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section was created after the GA review was passed. I agree that it is undue as well. I think it is fine to have 2-3 paragraphs discussing the technical state of broken games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Battlefield 4 at launch, but two whole paragraphs here is way too much. Given Digital Foundry is a tech review (an observation of the game's technical state), they don't actually discuss the game's development. Right now, I think this information don't really fit anywhere in our typical article framework (gameplay/plot/development/reception). OceanHok (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackstardust16: is the editor involved in creating this section. Please have a look at the general recommendations here. Please stop wholesale reverting other editors who are trying to improve on what you have written. You are showing a very strong WP:OWN tendency. OceanHok (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ignore technology because video games as a medium is where technology and art meet. Whether it is the first games with 3D computer graphics, Doom 3's advances in shadow rendering, or the technical demands of Crysis, it is notable for how video games have evolved as a medium and what new technology they introduced. Just because personally don't understand or care about it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Articles on things like physics, biology and medicine are significantly more complex in their writing because it is unavoidable as the subject itself is complex. Please don't insult the intelligence of readers by dumbing down information to a childlike level. Blackstardust16 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is debating deleting the section, simply making it more accessable. I agree that it is too technical. For example, "The path tracing implementation does not use ReSTIR Direct Lighting so some lighting is still using a rasterisation-based pipeline. Path tracing fully replaces static cube maps used on glass reflections." I have a fairly high degree of technical knowledge, I took a computer graphics course in university and have messed around quite a bit with this stuff in the past. I can barely read this. I don't know what "ReSTIR Direct Lighting", "rasterisation-based pipelines", or "static cube maps" are and I'm not sure what effect they would have on the technical performance of the game. We are supposed to be writing for a general WP:AUDIENCE. The idea is, if someone's grandma hit "Random article" and ended up on this article would they understand what was going on.
In this case too, we're going into incredible technical detail over what the game isn't. Is it worth breaking out the technical jargon to let a general audience know that the game doesn't contain static cube maps. There is a middle ground here. A lot of this content can be kept but you have to be able to meet people halfway. This is Wikipedia, collaboration is the whole point. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's this thing called links that you can click on. They take you to other pages like ReSTIR so you can read more about it for yourself if you don't know about it. I trust you can figure it out. Blackstardust16 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But why do I need to know more when the game doesn't even use it in the first place? And why is that a vital piece of the article that needs to protected under wholesale revision at all costs. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, that's one of the five pillars, "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed". You do not WP:OWN that section of the article and you need to be willing to come to a comprimise with other editors who have a different opinion than you do. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong. Technology is important for video games, so no one is arguing for its removal. It is great to have a detailed technology section for video games. It is a big pity that no one can actually understand the content or why it is important to this particular game. Always discuss the game for what it is, not what it isn't. I know you will not agree with this, but dumbing down information to a childlike level, is the best way of writing an article for a general encyclopedia where we expect readers to come in with zero knowledge about anything. OceanHok (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, "do not use links as a substitute for explanation; if a technical term can be simply explained in a few words, do so." Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Blackstardust16 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-mechanical games

[edit]

I was looking at Electro-mechanical games and it seems that this subject is underdeveloped on Wikipedia. A lot of these games don't have their own articles; Electro-mechanical game#Racing games makes it look like Indy 500 (1968) is a major omission if anyone wanted to work on that. I also wonder if it's possible to create a List of electro-mechanical games or if it's too broad of a subject. I don't know enough about early video game history to say where the line is drawn, and the article isn't totally clear on the scope—it jumps between branded games by companies like Sega and generic games like air hockey, and it cuts off entirely after 1991. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need to have most of those sourced to non-first party sources, which may be difficult without digging into print and old newspaper/magazine archives. That's going to be a barrier. Masem (t) 03:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "electro-mechanical" is the part that's not specific enough. I think it's "games". There's definitely a gradient between jukeboxes, fortune telling machines, claw games, air hockey, and pinball. I'd suggest List of coin-operated machines as an alternative but that would be way too broad. Museum of the Game (Killer List of Videogames) is always a good place to start with this stuff and our list seems to say it's reliable, definetly not enough to write an article on it's own though. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of pure electro-mechanical arcade games, I've come up with a list of currently existing articles, excluding redemption games and pinball: Auto Test, F-1 (arcade game), Haunted House (arcade game), Jet Rocket, Laser Clay Shooting System, Nimatron, Periscope (arcade game), Rifleman (arcade game), Shoot Away, Submarine (arcade game), and Wild Gunman. Category:Electro-mechanical arcade games seems viable based on these. Pinball and redemption games present a problem because they're still arcade games and a large portion of them are electro-mechanical but a lot aren't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good category to me. Fits nice and snug next to the rest of the Category:Arcade games subcategories. Relevant pinball and redemption games could be included to, though I think personally I'd try and keep them to their own categories. I think in my head I put all the non-video game arcade machines in the same electro-mechanical bucket, even if the pinball machine does technically have a screen and a motherboard (ultimately play is still the result of physical objects bumping about). But I'm not sure that's really a majority opinion. Also for non arcade games, I know there's Category:Electronic games and especially Category:Electronic board games though that also looks a bit underdeveloped. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Early electro-mechanical games are a major gap in our coverage, yes- frankly, all early video games used to be before I rewrote/GA'd every pre-1972 'video game' article we have. But I never got deep on electro-mechanical games, and no one else has seemed to step up in that space - even what we do have is suspect, as a lot of the article itself was written by a sock of Jagged 85, now long blocked for making a lot of stuff up.
I do think a "List of electro-mechanical games" is possible but definitions are hard, yeah. It would be hard to tell what's electro-mechanical and what's electronic from the existing sources (the difference is the use of electronic components e.g. transistors vs. just lights and relays), and you'd want to exclude stuff from List of pinball machines, but that's fairly arbitrary. If you found a good book or source, though, could be doable. --PresN 11:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews for Cabela's Big Game Hunter III

[edit]

Does anyone see any reviews for Cabela's Big Game Hunter III? I feel like i have searched everywhere. Timur9008 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no. It seems like it's just time to merge it to Cabela's Big Game Hunter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will keeping still. Maybe I will find something. Timur9008 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 4 to May 10)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.22 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 8

  • None

May 9

May 10

Whoops, forgot to post on Monday. As mentioned last week, script updated to fix a longstanding bug where pages being created and then moved on the same day were being skipped as just a move. Let me know if it's still missing anything. --PresN 03:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe Category:Songs from James Bond video games is a reasonable category. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all. I and another editor have been discussing at Talk:Xbox whether to replace the free use Xbox logo with the (likely) non-free glass logo that was introduced last month. I originally thought this would be okay provided the new logo had the correct non-free use rationale applied, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think the glass logo would fall below the threshold of originality given the effects applied to it, and it doesn't make sense to me to replace a free logo with a non-free version.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here, so I thought I'd seek out help from the relevant project and go from there. Thank you all in advance. GSK 14:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit (which I have reverted because it's a botched edit where the background was removed), I would really like there to be a consensus established regarding how this should be handled. Zxcvbnm left a comment here that I read as being against the logo change, but I'm not really sure. GSK 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just changing the logo to the one that Ryan York uploaded [1]. GSK 22:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a "desgin" section in the horror game article?

[edit]

This article explains its geners and history, but it lacks what makes horror games scary in the first place based on its desgin. There are some relibale sources on this and other genre articles have a desgin section. Snake101201 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is keeping you from adding a section like that? Be bold! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nothing. Just wondering to be consistent with other video game genres. Snake101201 (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I very much hope such an addition will be possible here, as I think it's deeply interesting. It is certainly relevant as well. I think the lack of an analysis of design in genre articles is a bit of a shame, but I think it works particularly well here because Horror is both a literary genre and a video game genre, and the distinction is not inherently clear. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snake101201 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for X-Wing: Apocalypse and Grand Slam Bridge III

[edit]

This is as I've been clearing my sandbox/backlog. But does anyone see any more sources for these two games? Mentioned here [2] (X-Wing: Apocalypse) and here [3] (Grand Slam Bridge III).

I'm not sure what X-Wing: Apocalypse is really. (mentioned once on that PC Data chart). Grand Slam Bridge III appeared on PC Data charts in April 2000 but that's it. Not other info that I can see online. The original Grand Slam Bridge is what Tim Cain worked on. Timur9008 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is X-Wing: Apocalypse perhaps related to X-COM: Apocalypse? They have the same publisher and year of release, so maybe it's just a typo. The publisher's website only lists X-COM. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that just being some sort of freudian slip for X-COM seems pretty reasonable/likely. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Grand Slam Bridge III: a modestly deep search turned up nothing. I looked across web results, magazines like Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer, and archived developer/publisher websites. If this game actually exists, it's exceedingly rare. or maybe I'm just blind and missed it... Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 11 to May 17)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.22 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

Are the new "* games among the best" lists just forks of subsets of List of video games listed among the best with consoled-specific ledes (e.g. Nintendo 64 games listed among the best)? I don't see any such discussion at the talk page there, and they seem duplicative at first glance. They're also not tagged with Category:Lists of video games by reception or rating or a navbox template. --PresN 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just notification here, why was I? Monathephantom (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because you created Undertale: The Determination Symphony, Monathephantom. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same thing. Do people really get pinged to this page any time they create an article even remotely related to video games? I'd like to opt-out of that, and I imagine a lot of editors would. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be wrong! Adding you to the ping opt-out list as the 3rd ever person to ask in the 8 years I've been running this script. --PresN 19:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I was surprised but I do appreciate it :D
Thank you for maintaining this! Canadianerk (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most people enjoy the shout out. We get far more complaints that their creation didn't result in a ping due to various glitches or circumstances, honestly. It's only published weekly, and it's only on weeks when you publish a video game related article, so it's not really all that much... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion at the creator's talk page, but no centralized discussion about it, as far as I can tell. They strike me as a bit...excessive? The GameCube lists off about 10% of the console's entire library, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
given that none of the major awards give out platform specific games (excluding mobile and vr), i would agree these are inappropriate forks. Masem (t) 17:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good argument to make with these lists is to look at Operation C (video game). It is listed on the list of Game Boy/Game Boy Color games, and yet if you look at Game Rankings, you see an 80%. A respectable score, but greatest Game Boy game of all time? Furthermore, one of the two review box reviews for that game gives it a 5/10. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Additionally, they seem to be using virtually any placement on a "best of listicle" to justify inclusion. Appearing as 50th place on a list of the top 50 list from Nintendo Life was enough, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
List of action role-playing video games feels a bit subjective doesn't it? How much action does it need? How much role-playing? Is Zelda an action rpg? and so on. I was kind of hoping the inclusion criteria would be a reference that actually calls it that but doing some spot checks, the references just provide the objective data. There was a lot of work put into it clearly, so I'm not that committed to kicking over someone else's sand castle but I would love for the ground rules to be clearer. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of the list works if the inclusion criteria are tightened up to "multiple reliable sources call the game an ARPG". After all, action role-playing game seems as definable as any other genre, so long as we don't have to do WP:OR to come to that conclusion.
Side note: the current verbiage that This page should contain any games listed as either Action RPGs or Soulslikes. This page does not currently include Looter shooters, as these games are generally viewed more as Shooters than RPGs is problematic (unnecessary editorializing of soulslikes and looter shooters, our classifications should be based on outside sources). ~ A412 talk! 18:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this is also a content fork in the same way as the "among the best" lists- this is just a bunch of rows filtered out from List of role-playing video games: 2020 to 2021 et al., with the subgenre column taken off. --PresN 18:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that inclusion criteria could be made better. As the person that made the page, i just went off what was done on the List of tactical role-playing video games pages. To me, if there's a page for Tactical RPGs, there should be one for Action RPGs, especially with the popularity of soulslike games.
The Looter Shooter distinction is only there because I personally haven't played these games, and do not feel comfortable calling them Action RPGs. If someone else with more knowledge in this area wishes to change that, i have no issues including it 13akoors (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think if a game is notable enough for inclusion then it shouldn't be too difficult in general to find a review that says "this is an action rpg" or the like. Though with this many games that's still a massive undertaking, I know.
Still looking through the other lists, it looks like they don't have any citations at all so this is still a big step up. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm currently working through all the lists right now to add references. Though I'm a bit stuck on pre-2012 games, since there are 0 or near 0 references on any any pages. So I fear I'll end up delving into the massive pit of sourcing woes very soon 13akoors (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The constant struggle, I see the same thing in my early 80s world. So many horrible GameFAQs stubs someone created in like 2007 that no one has gone back to patch up even though we are overflowing with sources nowadays. I would probably give the title a quick pass through the programmable search engine or VGHF's document search, most prominent games you'll come up with something. Sometimes Moby Games has reviews listed to, though sometimes they're from like random bloggers so you have to watch out. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it can be a real one-and-done citation for a genre, but it grows complicated when we have multiple sources material several genres and as genre is subjective, you cannot really say one is "wrong" (which we shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia anyways on something that is basically an opinion.) What I try to do is to find a source that goes more into detail about why something may fit a genre (i.e: blankety-blank the game has all the traits of a tactical-RPG with the game-mechanic1, 2 and 3 fully present" or whatever.) I feel whoever goes more into detail on why or how something fits a genre applies WP:WEIGHT better than 7 citations next to genre. I also tend to lean towards more contemporary reviews in terms of genre as it will be more applicable to a contemporary reader than someone calling Megamania an "invaders-type game" or a "space game" as these are kind of antiquated terms that won't mean much to a contemporary reader. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an added note too, I try to make sure someone has played a game. Its easy to look at a trailer or use a press release to comment on a genre, but this is not a great way to actually observe game mechanics which should help clarify what is or is not a genre. I'm not sure if everyone will agree, but usually makes finding someone who's experienced a work instead of going by "well i've seen a clip of it". Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 13 May 2026

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 13 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB ratings

[edit]

An article's claim that a game received an AO rating from the ESRB has been called into question. The publisher's website displays the AO rating, but the game does not have a listing on the ESRB website. This raises two questions:

  • What is the likelihood of a game which was rated by the ESRB not being listed on their website? I thought that absolutely everything they rated went up there.
  • Is it reasonable to doubt the publisher's own claim of an AO rating? I can't think of any meaningful benefit to putting an AO rating on a listing for a game that didn't receive one, and doing so opens the publisher up to a potential lawsuit from the ESRB.

Martin IIIa (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't ESRB typically WP:GAMECRUFT? If a game's esrb isn't mentioned by independant reliable sources then it almost certainly shouldn't be in the article. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is generally correct. I can't tell what game we're talking about, so I can't weight in on if this is a likely exception or not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the article in question is List of AO-rated video games, so unless the article as a whole is to be deleted, ESRB ratings are significant in this context. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't verify it to a secondary source, I would be safe and leave it out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this particular case, the (supposed) AO rating itself makes it rare and nontrivial. But in particular, which game? MilkyDefer 14:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eden* Plus+Mosaic. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Visual Novel Database, it looks like +Mosaic was a patch file that added adult scenes, but the base game did not include them. Is it possible the developer just listed the patch as AO, but the game itself isn't? 13akoors (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know how eroges on Steam work: publishers obtain licenses from their original developers to localize and sell on Steam to reach a worldwide audience. In order to pass the Steam review they have to cut out the hentai parts. In the early days the cut content can be seperately released as a Steam game DLC attached to the original game. Later this becomes impossible, and the publishers offer restoration patches off-Steam (usually on their official websites). More recently the base game without hentai content becomes hard to get approval from Steam so the publishers begin to set up their own storefronts. Without compliance with Steam's policies they can offer the whole game without the split of content, which I guess is the case of this particular MangaGamer's Eden* version. Financial censorship is another topic that I would not wish to elaborate here. MilkyDefer 17:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yes, ESRB, PEGI, etc. are generally not things we discuss just because the rating is there. However, there are notable cases where the rating has been the subject of discussion (GTA IV and Hot Coffee, Balatro, etc.) and that's fine to discuss those with sources.
I would also agree ratings that either by law or practice strictly limit the game's distribution (AO for ESRB, several Aussia categories) are appropriate for a list, as long as its discussed why that rating triggers blocks on sale. Masem (t) 02:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Cite video game § Citing multiple consecutive lines of dialogue

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite video game § Citing multiple consecutive lines of dialogue. Specifically, this is in relation to that template's use of {{cite book}} and the quote parameter in particular. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1355739353"
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Add topic
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.