Jump to content

Template talk:Video game reviews

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferret (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 13 June 2023 (→OpenCritic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Related pages

Tilt (French magazine)

Tilt must have the most convoluted scoring system in gaming history: "interest" is scored on a scale of 0-20, "graphics, animation, sound effects, +dozen others" seems to be a 6 star system (not 5), and then there are "language and price" that for some reason get a letter grade (A to F, but why are they using that when academic grading in France is 0-20). I guess "interest" is the overall score but some games like Ultima 4 don't get even that. Mika1h (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the letter "grade" for the price is not a subjective ranking, it is directly mapped to specific price brackets in Francs: https://i.imgur.com/kfYJmfl.png Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCritic

I was just wondering what other people thought about possibly adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator next to Metacritic. For the last few years OpenCritic has been gaining a lot more attention on social media, forums, websites and basically any other place used to discuss video games. I think it would be worth considering, also because OpenCritic does not use weighted average, unlike Metacritic. Poklane 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the discussion, but your signature should at least have a link to your talk page per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpenCritic has had multiple discussions are WP:VG, WP:VG/S, and I believe MOS:VG. Those discussions thus far have not resulted in it being treated as a reliable, nor as necessary or desired alongside Metacritic. It certainly will not be added to the template until a consensus to use it is established. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather disingenous to accuse Opencritic of not being 'reliable' when there have been several concerns raised over the years about the opacity Metacritic's scoring system and their differential weighting to certain review sources. What exactly would the criteria to determine whether or not it is reliable?
The fact remains that it is a currently major aggregator and the second biggest after Metacritic. The same way multiple review sources are listed in the template without passing any judgement on their perceived reliability, and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions, seems to me the most sensible way to proceed - list it alongside Metacritic and give people the opportunity and respect to appraise it themselves. Not having it in the template is a disservice to the reader IMO. Armuk (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable" in this context refers to WP:RS, our guideline. I am not making any personal statement that I believe OpenCritic lies or anything like that. I am also simply relaying to you the current project consensus. This template will not add OpenCritic while that consensus stands. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point remains unchanged - what exactly is the specific criteria used to make a determination on its so-called reliability? Who is it that the consensus must be derived from? The linked guideline lists some broad principles but answers neither question.
The faceless monolith that Wikipedia has becomes seems to be far removed from its initial purpose of the democratic provision of information. Armuk (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's so many discussions on OpenCritic that it is difficult for me to find the right most recent one. That, is indeed, an issue. However, to suggest we've somehow lost the "democratic provision" and aren't properly discussing and building consensus is just needlessly antagonistic. The last decision was a site-wide RFC. I'm looking for it now. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_5#Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator I believe is the last major RFC. There have been many other discussion even since then, including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_23#OpenCritic. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So OpenCritic's last appraisal for suitability was in 2017, and the main point of opposition was essentially its perceived niche status, that it was not used to the same extent as Metacritic among the industry & consumer base.
Six years on, that status quo has certainly changed; OpenCritic is now a major player in the space. Given that the primary argument against is largely no longer valid, a re-assessment as to its inclusion in 2023 is now most definitely warranted. Armuk (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to make that argument and broach the subject at MOS:VG. Determining the both the reliability and suitability of OpenCritic's use would best be a topic for that page. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest it's worth another discussion. Reading through the previous topics on this, most were quite long ago. OpenCritic has since been implemented in more places such as GOG.com and has had updates.
Beyond that, some of the arguments against fell into the category of 'we have MetaCritic already', which isn't an argument against OpenCritic's reliability itself. As well as this, with OpenCritic's wider pool of vetted critics, there are niche titles that are not scored on MetaCritic, but are on OpenCritic, so it could be useful at least for those times. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been implemented following conclusion of the RFC at MOS:VG. Please read the instructions before you begin to use it. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several "generalist" outlets

Could we add a number of generalist outlets, at least for their reviews of AAA+ titles? For example, there are "scored" reviews for Tears of the Kingdom from major generalist sources not in the module atm:

Juxlos (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Express is unreliable, so a definite no, while Evening Standard has no consensus and would likely need further discussion at WT:VG/S or WP:RSN first. Financial Times is reliable but I'm not sure they actually review games enough to justify inclusion in the template; if editors feel a review is particularly important, I'd recommend using the custom parameters instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding everything Rhain just said. Sergecross73 msg me 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rhain's view. The customer reviewer fields exists for one off situations like this. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Financial Times does review a number of games, but I suppose they only do it for 2-3 games a month. Can someone guide me through using the custom parameters? Juxlos (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Juxlos: Of course. For the example mentioned above, you'd just use two parameters: |rev1=Financial Times and |rev1Score=4/5 (or replace "rev1" with "rev2", "rev3", etc.). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how come I didn't see that in the template documentation earlier. Oh well, thanks. Juxlos (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Add Intellivision to the system list, so I can add some Intellivision ratings to Pitfall!. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done With the parameter INT -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request: WorthPlaying

WorthPlaying has various game reviews. This reviewer listed in Metacritic. Just adding |WP= on a template. Windywalk (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:VG/S lists WorthPlaying as unreliable. Do not add it to articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Video_game_reviews&oldid=1159971188"