Talk:2008 in video games

January/February

I re-added the entries to the page because there is no good reason to remove them from the article and no discussion on if this should be done. Remember WP:Consensus is important before making any major changes to an article, especially if they remove content. While I understand Jan/Feb are removed and no longer meeting the "upcoming" label, they are still events in video gaming for 2008 and should be moved to their own section or better incorporated in the current one, not purged. 70.65.140.58 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

This database' much more better than the one in 2007. Keep up the great work. Zeta26 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

A game should be listed with its Japan or Europe release date if it was released in one of those regions before being released in North America. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also if a game was released during 2007 in Japan or Europe but will be released during 2008 in North America, it should be listed with its Japan or Europe release date in 2007 in video gaming instead of being listed in this article. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Release List Game Entries

Do not delete game entries on the release list. Because they have been confirmed by their respective game company that they will release on that specific day. Such is the case with Super Smash Bros Brawl which was deleted a while back. Zeta26 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre Errors A Plenty

I am attempting to fix a huge amount of genre mislabeling all over the place on these games. Let's be consistent, maybe use a legend of some kind. What the heck is Modern as a genre for Agatha Christie for the Wii? Naruto for DS is not an RPG, but a fighting game...Professor Layton for DS is an Adventure and Puzzle game, not Edutainment. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is NOT a FPS, but an Action RPG that just so happens to be in first person perspective. Randomengine (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the old system

this one takes about ten minutes to make a new one and it is hard to change it and there are tons of errors and nobody cares because the system is so busted and some games can't fit into a genreMarioman12 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, and I just accidentally messed up the release list (February). As there's so much. You'd have to change this to make that entry look the same as the others. And one slight mistake can like mess it up. Zeta26 19, February 2008 02:33 (UTC).

Genre for each game is redundant and useless here, it needs to be removed. If someone wants to know the genre, they should visit the game's specific page for more info. This page should look just like 2007 in video gaming. Date, Title, and System....that's all that should be here, anything else is extraneous and makes editing mistakes much, much harder.Randomengine (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, it should use the format in 2007 in video gaming which is easier to maintain, and listing genres here is a little pointless. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But we need to list the games that came out in 2008 don't delete them why did you do thatMarioman12 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to write much here. All i can say is look at 2008 in film. The table is clear and well laid out. The old table is terrible and i feel like vomiting everytime i see it. It is plain ugly, unclear. I guess i can take my leave and rest of you guys can take care of it. :). When i was creating the table i knew that people like you would face difficult in editing. I first faced difficult with this table when i was adding entry at 2007 in film and later iam used to it. You people the min you edited the table you are saying it is difficult and giving lot of excuses for wanting the old table. The new table can do lot of things and with many entries the table would beautiful at the year's end. The old table would be look so ugly at the year's end.

About the genre. It was testing phaze. Later i thought it would be helpful for people who are new to games who can look at genre and the release date at the same time. All this is my reason for creating a new table. 2008 is meant for thing to change but now it is the same has 2007.

If you guys can give 1 more try for the table until the year is over and decide if year 2009 should have new table or old table i would be happy to help you learn how new table works. Thanks for hearing me. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought back the "old" table for several reasons. Most of all the current table is clean, easy on the eyes, and allows everyone to get to the most valuable information quickly. Another good reason for using the current table is that it is much easier to edit and maintain, which is important as using the other table discourages people from making edits due to its wonky nature. I don't think the use of colors is a good idea in the first place, who is to say which color should be used? We are not trying to make this page pretty or flashy or cool or anything like that. A wikitable is perfectly sufficient for the needs of this page, which is simply to provide a list of games and release dates for a given year. That is all that table needs to accomplish. Anything else is extraneous and gets in the way of the primary objective. I see no reason to "improve" these types of pages in the future, least of all the aesthetics of the table. If you truly believe that the type of table you are promoting is superior to the wikitable, please have it established as a standard with the wikipedia community so that we can make editing it easier. Randomengine (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The main reason is you don't understand. The table is used is no special table. Colour can be removed to. It is a simple table. Yes you do not need to tell about wikipedia community. I know it well. How come no one is blaming this sort of table used in 2008 in film. All i hear from you is excuses and more excuses. Also yes the table before was very superior for many reasons. Reasons i can't explain. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also i had many plans to improve future video gaming. You people are blocking me for this very reasons. You don't wish things to improve. Also yes i have planned to implement this table last year on sept. The reasons why i did not was the table was complex. I took my time to understand and i implemented it this year. First things would be tough later it would be easy. My motto is simple: Nothing is impossible. I did not create the table for sakes of beauty. I created it for people who who appreciated . 3 people like you who blamed me for this table would not put me down. Understand that. I too was involved in video gaming for long. I wanted thing to improve not for things to same. If we don't thing to improve i would say ancient days was better than thing improving this many centuries. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep this simple method of a table. We don't need anything more than Release date, Game and Platform for this article of release dates.--WhereAmI (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You just don't understand do you?. The table is simple for those who can learn. Look at previous 200X in video gaming. Thing have improved. I wanted thing to improve further. I even prefer genre being added to the list. It is more informative. I can't much in here has no one understand in here. If i need to follow release dates i can follow sites such has ign, gamespy, gamespot. That is where all the releases dates have been added here. :). See you. Have fun editing. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I could understand and I knew damn well what I was doing when I did it.

I

didn't

like

it.

See how annoying vertical reading is? It also looks bad. We just need Release Date, Platform and Game. Thats it, and in a nice list format thats easy enough. Maybe separate the months. You said something about 2007 in film. They do alot more there, alot thats not necessary here. But you don't seem to understand that many of us don't like it and thats how Wikipedia works. We will no longer do it YOUR WAY.--WhereAmI (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not asked anyone to things on MY WAY. Understand?. I just asked to reconsider. I asked the table to be added just for the sakes of improvement. Things will eventually be improved if not today maybe tomorrow. Whether you LIKE IT or NOT. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two months missing?

where is january and february? i can't see them. i really want to look releases of these 2 months. edit: now i see these 2 months again, thanks :)

There definately seems to be issues with past months being removed. Unless anyone objects, I'm classifying this as an unintentional error and will revert 70.65.140.58 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Entry format

Would you guys stop changing the release date entry format? Once it's been done, is done. Don't change it again. It's getting really annoying Zeta26 10:38 21, February 2008 (UTC)

North American release dates

Currently, the "Release" section uses North American release dates, which should be changed since it is biased. It should either use:

1. Original release dates as per this previous discussion, where a game is only listed with the date it was originally released. For example, Super Smash Bros. Brawl would only be listed at January 31 (its original release date) instead of March 9, and it wouldn't be listed in the table with its other release dates. Wii Fit, a game which was released on December 12007 in Japan, would not be listed in the table at all, as it was originally released in 2007.
2. Release dates as per WP:VG/DATE: "Release dates should be provided from primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. If the video game is first released in a non-English country, commonly in Japan, then that should also be stated." With this format, a game would be listed multiple times, with its North America, Europe, and Australia release dates, and its Japan release date only if the game was released in Japan first.

I'd prefer using the original release date, as the second format would clutter the table. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

With no objections to my proposed changes for nearly three weeks, I'm going to be bold and make the changes as per this previous discussion. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

month or quarter of release where a specific date is not known?

would this be helpful? we have a huge list of "Unscheduled" releases where in certain cases we know they are scheduled for Q2/Q3/Q4 or "November" in the case of GoW2. xenocidic (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would rather wait for proper release date. The problem with some games is that it keeps on changing. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is probably best to lump all the non-specific release date titles together as a vague release date and a non-release date are pretty much synonymous. It is either accurate or it isn't. The less resources spent on shuffling vaporous release dates the better. Randomengine (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Persona 3: FES North American Date

Um, why did this get deleted out of the Notable Releases. Which was sandwiched between Super Smash Bros Brawl. and GTA IV. I put this here for a reason, it was already confirmed that Persona 3 Fes was going to release April 22nd and that even it's main profile on Wikipedia itself confirmed that it was going to release on April 22nd. What's up with that? And why do you guys do that? Once a date has been confirmed, do not delete it.Zeta26 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from the "Notable releases", because it's not a notable release. The previous version states: "The original game which sold millions", where is the reliable source that says it sold millions?[1] The current version now says it is a "fan favorite",[2] which is point of view. Some sort of "Notable releases" guideline for inclusion should be made for this article and all the other "year in video gaming" articles. Here are some previous discussions about the "Notable releases" section: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a good criteria for notable releases, if we use the system at all, which is debatable, is that it cannot be a repackaged release or special edition. Nothing fundamentally changes about the game that makes it notable on its own. Persona 3: FES is a repackaged special edition and as such does not qualify for inclusion.Randomengine (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Dates (2)

Would you guys stop fiddling around with the release date titles? It's really getting outta hand and annoying. Once it has been added to the release date list that doesn't mean you can change it around, titles like Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness need to be left alone. Since it's already been confirmed. Zeta26 10:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised by how many release dates were wrong and notable games were missing. I added a bunch of Nintendo published games, always notable, including: Endless Ocean, Professor Layton, Crosswords DS, Wii Fit and I fix release dates on Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Hopefully, nobody messes with them, though Crosswords DS is not 100% concrete, but the date is from IGN according to the wikipage on it. Randomengine (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the #North American release dates section, the article is using original release dates. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well I'm only following the official release dates that have been posted by the game company themselves. Like with Mario Kart Wii, it has already been confirmed that the game will be releasing a week after it's European debut; April 27th, to May 3rd. Not April 10. Zeta26 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)