Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.93.169.157 (talk) at 01:41, 27 May 2012 (→Remake in vidéo game). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

OnLive and its status as a platform (yes, again)

Relevant previous discussions Feb 2011, Jan 2011,March 2009, July 2011,August 2011 and Febuary 2012

Today I was doing some minor clear up on the OnLive article and as the first sentence says "OnLive Is A Cloud Gaming Platform" I appended Platform next to "Cloud Gaming" in the infobox, only for it to be instantly reverted. Considering we have developers, publishers and gaming new sites that refer to OnLive as a platform, why on earth can we not call it a platform on Wikipedia? Heck Eurogamer list it fourth in their list of Platforms and as illustrated in previous discussions I can provide citations for several developers and publishers calling it such.

Titles require specific development for OnLive, It has its own SDK, multiplayer is restricted to OnLive users with other OnLive users only, it enables games to be played on a wide range of devices including Android tablets, they have their own console, store front, social aspects, accessories and all sort of things that you would usually associate with a gaming platform yet there seems to be a continuing divide on if we can or cannot call it such. Heck as referenced above we have people reverting the word "Platform" from an infobox but leaving it in the article. The same issues seem to be occuring on individual title pages too, Borderlands states OnLive under platforms, where as it gets instantly reverted from other titles.

At the end of this discussion last time, the following comment was made: It looks like something solid is forming regarding OnLive, Steam, Gaikai etc. Anyone care to create a passage of text for the guidelines?, that we can vote on and point to in future. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Which seems not to have occurred in any form.

Can we please come up with some kind of consensus on what to do here, while there ARE similarities to Gaikai it is clearly grey label middleware, Steam is a distribution platform with social and multiplayer aspects which prides itself on providing "PC Gaming" (predominantly) and if I buy a retail version of a title I can play with owners who bought it via Steam and so forth. While OnLive is to my eyes (and multiple citable sources) a separate platform.

Adycarter (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Platform" for our purposes of listing within the infobox has to be some piece of hardward; Onlive does not require that, and thus acts at the middleware like Steam. We don't list Steam in a list of platforms unless the game is exclusive to it for PC/Mac versions, as to avoid to giving issues of storefront/middleware favoritism. Hence, we have to treat Onlive as a storefront (even though they do offer a piece of hardware it is not required to use it). --MASEM (t) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means in the actual OnLive article: [1], not in game articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much yes. The OnLive article recognising it as a Platform is my desired outcome. The game article infoboxes are a whole other can of worms (and massively inconsistent as it is anyway) and as previous discussions covered considering the "Hardware for Infobox status" argument I can live with OnLive living in "Distribution Method" on most game articles for now. Adycarter (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the OnLive article, "platform" is fine, understanding that the english word "platform" has a broad range of meanings, but includes the hardware platform and the software platform aspects. It's important that just because "platform" is used on the Onlive article to describe it, that point is not used to push OnLive as an entry in "platform" for the infobox template. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Masem. There is not movement from my February position. - hahnchen 20:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can get consensus on two things. One, OnLive is widely described as a platform, though what kind of platform is rarely if ever rigorously defined. And two, we are operating without a reliable source to define what constitutes a video game platform. It seems a consensus (or maybe just a status quo) was reached at some point to say that a video game platform is a computing platform that videogames run on, but that to me seems arbitrary and ripe for review. Can someone provide an RS for that definition or a rationale for why it cannot or should not be something else? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to go with ButOnMethItIs here. Unless we have a solid set of reliable sources as to the specifics of what we define as a platform there's no reason to keep up with the current borderline synthesis. I realize we need to draw a line somewhere, but if reliable sources recognize it as a platform and not a service (which seems to be what we categorize it as) then we need to follow the industry. --Teancum (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a primary source but how does it factor into the discussion? http://support.onlive.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/178/~/onlive-app-available-platforms ... Here OnLive refers to it's offering repeatedly as a service, available on platforms that are more familiar to what we already use in infoboxes, i.e., operating systems. Also a quick google without verifying the results too indepth has 9 million hits for "Onlive platform", and 32 million for "Onlive service". While I understand some media outlets say platform, this idea of a platform-on-a-platform messes with my head. How do you unravel the inconsistent use of both "platform" and "service" between various RS's and the primary source itself? -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". And there's no reason that services and platforms should be mutually exclusive or that platform-on-a-platform shouldn't be treated as a proper platform. But you do bring up an important point: our reliable sources are less reliable than any of us would like. If our reliable sources conflict or are too vague to be helpful, I think it becomes a matter of editor consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't OnLine be comparable to Famicom Disk System, Satellaview, Steam, PSN, Virtual Console, Nintendo Power (cartridge), etc., in that it's a distribution system on a platform? The platform is "Computer" (or Windows/Mac), the distribution system is OnLive. Just like Satellaview games are SNES games, distributed by Satellaview; they may be exclusive to a specific distribution system, but the platform is the required hardware to play. You cannot play games on OnLive without a computer; thus the platform is the computer, not OnLive. If OnLive was a platform, I could get OnLive and play games on it with no other equipment or software. Salvidrim! 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to this, which is a hard box. A computer is in fact not required, but is one of the many methods to do cloud gaming via the system. I also should publicly state I'm not pro-platform here, but the fact is OnLive is going to be the first of many cloud-based platforms in the future; it's just where things are headed. --Teancum (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "platform" in that context also extends to iPads, Android devices, GoogleTV, certain TVs and BluRay players though, it may be a platform on a platform as someone above me stated, but the platform it runs on is a bit wider in scope that just one platform or "computers". Adycarter (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify a bit: what matters is not the hardware itself, but the OS. In the case of classic consoles, the hardware & OS are not distinguishable (a SNES & a SNES's OS are basically one entity). Thus, in the case of games being playable on one OS, on many physical pieces of hardware (iOS is an easy example), the OS is the platform. Same goes with, say, PSP, or GBA, where many versions of the hardware sport the same basic OS. We never differentiate a game as being playable on DS or DS Lite, because the OS (a DS's OS) is the same; same with PS3 & PS3 Slim. In the case of games being playable on different OS (not different games on different OS, as was common in the 80's), then the platform is Windows/Mac/Etc. As for OnLive, in light of the above, I would say it is a piece of distribution system software for computer games (where the platform still is the OS) AND a cloud-based home console platform; the two products are completely different both in how they work and what they are. Salvidrim! 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the end result is the same? Classing it as two separate things would surely just over complicate this madness even further? Its apparent there is no actual set of rules around what counts as a platform as others have mentioned, I don't see why people can't realise that OnLive is just the first of many "Platforms on Multiple other Platforms" and come up with a sane consistent way for dealing with this and other future similar platforms. Adycarter (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this discussion still taking place? The platform-on-a-platform argument is correct, but pretty much every distribution method can be described that way. Xbox Live Indie Games is a platform-on-a-platform, so is Steam, so is iTunes. OnLive is unambiguously a service, so why not describe it as such? - hahnchen 13:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are multiple reputable sources calling it a platform, other "platforms on a platform" also tend to be on one platform not a dozen and tend to be just a distribution method rather than something that games requiring porting to, featuring specific platform only multiplayer and friends lists along with specific hardware available just for it (Both the Microconsole and the OnLive Universal Wireless Controller). OnLive has its own hardware, its own OS/User layer, its own porting process, its own SDK, its own market place, its own multiplayer community and is called a "Platform" by multiple reputable gaming sites. Adycarter (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It is unambiguously a service, so why don't you describe it as such instead of repeating this discussion every month? - hahnchen 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black Paint is unambiguously black, it doesn't stop it also getting called paint. I've got involved in this discussion once before, where no outcome was reached so I've raised it again, I'm hardly raising it every month. You say its a service, myself, others in this discussion and reliable sources disagree Adycarter (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you disagree that it's a service? Why do you suggest on not-White Paint? I don't think that any reliable source disagrees that OnLive is a service. http://onlive.com, what is the big word next to the name? - hahnchen 16:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree it is a service, I've never said I do. However the OnLive Gaming Service and the OnLive Desktop Service are both facets of the OnLive Platform, as stated above by the user ButOnMethItIs "If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". IMO the whole thing is a pile of confusion not helped by the fact everything, even the company shares the name "OnLive", All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds. Adycarter (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add more confusion to this, it was announced last night that Assault Heroes 2 is coming to OnLive in the next couple of weeks, this game is only available on the 360 and has no PC version. (The XNA version has been ported to the OnLive SDK, as is the case with the upcoming FortressCraft) How do we deal with this in regards to the listing of platforms the game is on? We surely can't list "PC" because its not on the PC or if we are doing that do we have to list every platform the OnLive Platform/Service/Whatever is available on? These two are speculated to be the first of many games where there is no PC version but instead an OnLive version Adycarter (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clarifying point we'll have to figure out is just what the OnLive SDK is. Everyone says it's an emulated Windows service, and that may be right, but I've never actually seen a reference of that. It could be very well that OnLive servers use a custom OS. Anyone know/have a source? *edit* OnLive's VP is quoted as calling it an "open PC platform" on Gamasutra, but that could be simply hardware. *edit 2* Here's the OnLive Developer Conference (seven parts) on YouTube. Kinda long, but it might be insightful. --Teancum (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is an emulated windows service though (which it could well be) that doesn't really address the issues caused by OnLive "exclusive" titles, even if its found to be Windows its not like the titles are *really* on the Windows / PC platform and labelling them as such would surely lead to confusion? I'll see if I can dig any sources up that are definitive either way. Thinking about it whatever the SDK is based onits probably similar to the way the Dreamcast OS was done, the article freely admits it was a customised Windows CE yet obviously the Dreamcast was a platform. Adycarter (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the hardware and software OnLive uses for its backend is not relevant to whether or not OnLive is a platform in its own right. No one disputes that Amazon has a cloud platform and the two are very similar in this respect. Software that's available on Amazon's platform is generally described as being on a "web" or "SaaS" platform and I'm hopeful that a catch-all term might cover OnLive and all of its competitors. If that doesn't happen and we decide to list them individually, lists of platforms will get very crowded. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Everywhere I've looked OnLive personnel describe it as a PC, but they seem very set on not saying it's a Windows-based platform. Regardless they did specify it's rack-mount PC hardware running multiple virtual instances of machines on one physical platform, that much I can confirm from their developer's conference. The Computing platform article that is linked to in our infoboxes specifically states "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." Cloud computing is certainly a part of that. The hardware is present on both ends, with the servers running the software and streaming data to the user. By comparison Steam (since that's what everyone draws for comparison) is a service that allows you to download the game to run on a given platform (Windows, Mac), and thus is only a service. --Teancum (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the infoboxes would become massively cluttered if we do deem OnLive to be a platform, the other services are very much designed as middleware or for demos only, as opposed to including all of the other platform facets mentioned above (SDK, Hardware, Features, Exclusive Titles etc etc) Gaikai for example freely states it is simply using the PC versions on a PC in a data centre with no code modifications where as we know full well OnLive is using a different code base and specific hardware. As mentioned earlier several game articles already merrily have OnLive as a platform in the infobox there just seems to be a lack of consensus around its state and I'm hoping to negate future revert wars by forming a solid rule or at based some degree of consensus around it. Also that explantion of why Steam isn't a platform and OnLive is has to be the best way of putting it I've seen, thank you. Further more I just noticed that the Bastion (video game) article lists Google Chrome in the infobox as a platform, considering that title is also on OnLive it seems strange to me that Google Chrome can merrily be there as a platform yet historically OnLive cannot. Adycarter (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would put forth another example (albeit a bit silly): OnLive's processing hardware is off in some set of offices somewhere in the world, while the player uses their device merely as a monitor, speakers and a gamepad. This is no different than the Xbox 360 in my living room hooked up to my TV, surround sound and with a wireless gamepad. I could, theoretically, store the 360 miles away and run cables back to my house, hooking them up to my TV, stereo and gamepad. The Xbox 360 is still a console, even though the processing power isn't local. It's the same with OnLive -- players use whatever peripheral as their monitor, speakers and gamepad, but said peripheral does not power the game. --Teancum (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this topic seems to be winding down and showing a degree of consensus towards "Yes its a platform", I'm going to start amending relevant infoboxes Adycarter (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bold, too soon. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it already is on half of them and has been for ages Adycarter (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that you should go and add it to more of them. And since you started this discussion, I think we can all agree that you are not qualified to judge consensus. So stop implementing what you think is consensus, let the discussion run for a few more days and then let someone impartial judge whether there is consensus or not. Regards SoWhy 13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll stop, Wikipedia doesn't exactly make it easy to know what you are and aren't supposed to do though :/ Last time (as mentioned above) someone was supposed to be coming up with some form of rules or whatever and nothing happened, the conversation died and the talk got archived so I figured I'd run with what we've got so far. Obviously thats not the right plan Adycarter (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. It's called "common sense": Someone actively involved in a discussion on one side cannot impartially determine which side "won" and thus cannot determine consensus correctly. That means that you can argue for a certain outcome but the task of judging whether you were able to sway consensus to this outcome falls to someone not involved. If the discussion is in threat of being archived without consensus being determined, you can always request a neutral third-party to judge consensus, for example at WP:AN. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps naively I didn't realise these discussions had to be "won", Its listed on some titles, it gets insta-reverted from others, I was told this was the right place to try and get "back up" on if I was acting correctly, people seemed to agree so I figured I was good to edit further pages without the hope of revert wars. I've clearly totally underestimated the amount of bureaucracy required. I'll sit back now and let whatever is supposed to occur next happen Adycarter (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, which is why I used quotation marks. But I think you can agree with me that you, as the one arguing for this change, cannot also be the one impartially judging whether there is consensus to implement this change? Regards SoWhy 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I grasp that yeah, I just didn't feel I was arguing for a change as much as I was asking for some kind of agreement, if it wasn't on any infoboxes it would be one thing, but as it was under platform on some, distribution method on others and such all I was trying to do was get a consensus on where it should be and some back up that it *should* be for those articles someone seems to defend vehemently and not want it on. From my POV it wasn't an argument for change or a discussion to "win" just me looking for some clarification, I think I say as much above "All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds. " thats really all I was here looking for Adycarter (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject at hand: I don't think OnLive qualifies as a platform in the sense it's used in the infoboxes. Above discussion shows imho a mix-up of the term "platform" as in "what you use to play the game on" and "platform" as in "what you use to get the game". Onlive, despite using a somewhat different method, belongs in the second category, as does Steam or the Xbob marketplace for example. I think one of the reasons for this confusion is that we list "Microsoft Windows" as a platform in the infobox while the correct way would be to list "PC" (maybe in the form of "PC (Microsoft Windows)"). Based on that, I'd propose that we list OnLive, like Steam or similar, in a field called "distribution method" and keep the "platform"-field for the actual hardware platform the game is run on (which would include changing Windows to PC (Windows)). Regards SoWhy 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of platform that excludes OnLive is not only arbitrary, but without reliable sources and maybe even consensus. It seems that all it has going for it is that it's worked so far. Can we not use a different definition? Should we not? That's the direction this discussion needs to go in. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not arbitrary - I have taken it from our own article computing platform#Hardware examples. We'd just need to agree to adopt this definition as the one to use in the infobox. That also corresponds to the definition of platform as "a particular environment for running other software". Regards SoWhy 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we adopt that definition? Is it backed by reliable sources? Is it consistent with the way "platform" is used in the industry? As for platform, a definition that includes environments as platforms a la X Windows would make OnLive a platform. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reiterate that this isn't a distributor. A distributor is a software-only application. OnLive runs its own dedicated hardware, to which a given player's monitor/speakers/controller are hooked up. Steam merely serves as a storefront, while OnLive powers the games, thus fitting the definition of a platform: "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." --Teancum (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OnLive is a service that allows you to access PC games on other platforms. It's like the example above where you run your Xbox cables 3 miles across town. It's still an Xbox. You build the games for PC, and then you hook into OnLive in order to grant access through their service. You can wrangle the word platform to mean anything, it can mean Steam or the App Store, but we've limited the infobox field essentially to operating systems and virtual machines. OnLive is neither. On platforms, you can build and run anything you want, and it might require homebrew channels or breaching your warranty, but you have complete freedom. OnLive is not like that, it has significantly more constraints borne purely out of commercial agreements. You can't build anything unless they let you. You can't run anything unless they let you. - hahnchen 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show me somewhere reliable that says OnLive doesn't run a platform-specific operating system. I have never, ever seen it say it runs Windows. It runs PC hardware, but everything I've ever seen emphasizes more that it's custom. Unless you can prove via a reliable source that says it runs someone else's OS then there's no proof. --Teancum (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem awfully certain that OnLive isn't a platform considering that you can't say with much certainty what a platform is. See my comments above. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said a platform was an Operating System (ie Windows) or Virtual Machine (ie Java). I don't have a copy of the OnLive SDK, so I can't tell for certain whether its Windows. Only that it's an SDK and not an NDK. - hahnchen 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who else says that a platform is an OS or VM such that it would exclude OnLive? If you have neither a reliable source nor a clear consensus on what a platform is in this context, don't you think you're having the wrong conversation? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Wikipedia has done. It's not me coming up with a radical new definition of platform, but stating what we currently do. This is what we currently do. That is the context. - hahnchen 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So OnLive isn't a platform because it's not included in our definition of a platform, but we don't actually have a definition of what a platform is, we just have "what we currently do". Is that about right? And from what I can gather, "what we currently do" involves everyone pretending they know what a platform is, lord knows how, and arguing and sometimes editing accordingly. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see edits adding this to Platform in infobox of VG articles, citing this talk as "concluded" in favor of such. This is a really long and rambling section and I haven't followed every edit. Has such a concensus been reached? -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that was my bad and I've been told to stop. Adycarter (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just put OnLive in the distribution field. I said this last time, saying it again. - hahnchen 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable idea. The previous discussions on infobox decided to use only the method of delivery, e.g. online, dvd, cartridge. Therefore, should we include OnLive, we would say among the lines of "cloud" or something and not mention the specific company that does it. That said, we need consensus that "online" and "cloud" (or something) warrant separate values. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think though that much as there's talk above of "twisting" the definition of platform there is a danger of twisting the definition of distribution method here. Surely the point is to be informative and encyclopaedic and as such relegating the fact that hundreds of titles are available way beyond a "PC" and in multiple cases were completely rewritten for OnLive (RockStar made a gesture based LA Noire for OnLive to offer on Tablets, far beyond the touch overlay used on other titles) to a simple comment of "Cloud" in the Distribution method doesn't seem all that informative. I appreciate OnLive might not meet whatever the current definition of Platform is, but as commented above perhaps that definition needs reviewing and enforcing consistently (such as the fact Google Chrome is showing as Platform on Bastion) Adycarter (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to put "Cloud" in the distribution field. I'm saying to put "OnLive" in the distribution field. Regarding LA Noire's tablet support, you can build a Windows executable with WiiMote support, it's still a Windows executable. - hahnchen 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Chrome shouldn't be listed in |platform= until consensus forms. It's not a fact, rather an exception lacking discussion. It's been a year since a pretty overwhelming consensus not to list OnLive as computing platform. I guess we can pose the same question again, or indeed simply ask what |platform= should list. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome is an OS. It unambiguously meets the platform infobox criteria. Even when on top of another OS, it has it's own native code and sandbox where it does its thing. - hahnchen 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Google Chrome browser, not Google Chrome OS, as currently in Bastion's article. Of course, the OS is a platform. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that most of the reverts state "OnLive is PC Only" or similar its not really surprising that consensus was against it last time, and probably will be again there seems to be a general lack of understanding regarding it but that's a whole other story. It would be nice to see a consistent and policed infobox though, the present ones are so incredibly varied from title to title Adycarter (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As varied as the games they're designed for.. a heavily policed infobox would work fairly well for 80% (figure courtesy of the Institute for Studies) of games but the rest would left in the cold. Яehevkor ✉ 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see any other solution for you than asking "what should |platform= contain?" without a bias to OnLive per se. If the reason to oppose is "general lack of understanding" then an accompanying argument should educate everyone fairly, such as prominence of other methods besides computing platforms. The you have consensus, and we don't have to judge the issue on things like current usage and reverts, which are heavily subjective. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I've read so far it appears to me that OnLive does in fact meet the definition of a "platform". The infobox links the "platform" parameter to the article "computing platform". That article definition is as follows: "[a] computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." OnLive is a unique "hardware architecture and a software framework" on which applications can run. Games that run on OnLive are specifically designed to be compatible with the hardware and software; OnLive does not just run the retail version of PC games on remote Windows computers. Specifically, OnLive runs a proprietary virtual machine manager called Olives to manage the various operating systems (Windows- and Linux-based) that it runs on its custom servers (see here). Am I wrong to assume OnLive meets the criteria of a "computing platform"? If it does then it should be listed as a platform in the infoboxes. – Zntrip 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that application cannot run on OnLive if the supporting OS doesn't run. So if Microsoft decides to forbid using Windows, close to all Windows-based games won't run on OnLive at its present form. OnLive cannot be used as a stand-alone, whereas computing platform can. That's the main difference. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask you to consider the OnLive Micro-Console--71.235.9.161 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An operating system is not the same as a computing platform. I assume that almost all platforms incorporate proprietary software, operating systems or otherwise. The PlayStation 3 probably incorporates non-Sony proprietary software that it could not do without, so how is that different from OnLive? – Zntrip 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because, if you remove OnLive from equation and the changes they made, then (in this example) there is still PC hardware and Windows OS underneath, which supports the games. You can (roughly speaking) play the game without OnLive. OnLive does not natively support the games, it acts as an intermediately that brings its own adjustments. I wouldn't call my laptop a platform even if I was playing a game remotely on my friend's PC (laptop - hardware, remote viewer - software), even if he had to apply a special patch to get it working. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide a reliable source that it runs under someone else's operating system. --Teancum (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A hypervisor is unsuitable for the platform field. You do not build apps and executables for a hypervisor, you build it for the OS. - hahnchen 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OnLive uses a hypervisor, but it isn't in itself a hypervisor. OnLive is also not a cloud PC and it isn't just Windows running remotely. It uses unique software and hardware configurations and is therefor a unique computing platform. Is this last sentence not true? – Zntrip 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My PC uses unique hardware and software configurations. This doesn't make it a platform. The way we've used the platform field in the infobox has been for Operating Systems (like iOS) and Virtual Machines (like Java). I may hook an Windows executable into a variety of SDKs, but its still a Windows executable. - hahnchen 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive is a service, this is indisputable. OnLive is not defined by its operating system or it's back end or it's SDK. What OnLive offers is a service, it allows you to access games and apps running remotely on any device. I've been asked for a reliable sourcing stating that it isn't an operating system. This is ridiculous. Proponents for the platform designation should have a reliable source stating that it is an operating system. OnLive could completely alter their back end and business model, they could start offering Atari Lynx games run on Atari Lynxes synced up to a webcam. Those Atari Lynx games would be available on OnLive. The Atari Lynx is still the platform. To put OnLive as the platform would be misleading, OnLive is merely distributing the game (or access to the game depending on how you see it), it belongs in the distribution column. Just write "OnLive" in the distribution column, I'm not sure why this is so difficult. I said this last time. - hahnchen 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what is still confusing me: if a game's platform isn't OnLive, what is it? Would we list "server" or whatever OS the game is running on (which is unknown to the end user)? All computing devices obviously have different hardware and software settings, but to what extent do those differences constitute different platforms? At the end of the day all video game platforms are computers. Also, if virtual machines are included in the platform parameter, then OnLive should be included because it uses a proprietary hypervisor (which is a type of virtual machine) called Olives (see my first comment in the section). – Zntrip 07:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we some day get an exclusive Onlive-title things get even weirder. Should the platform field then be blank? That would mean that the game isn't running on any platform. But that's of course not possible. So something has to be listed in the platform field (and PC may be confusing if there isn't an actual PC version available to buy. And we also don't know if the servers Onlive uses can be called a PC.) --141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um sorry: I of course meant Microsoft Windows and not PC --141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In OnLive's case, the virtual machine sits on top of Olives. But why does this matter? They can change the back end however they want. Just put "OnLive" in the distribution field. - hahnchen 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if a game is distributed through OnLive, what is the computing platform? – Zntrip 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assume it's Windows, but you can't tell unless you have the SDK documentation. But they could change it next week. - hahnchen 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly why that doesn't work. Making assumptions. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Having done more research it fits Wikipedia's definition of a computing platform. It's not a distributor, either. A distributor is only a storefront. OnLive powers the games, regardless of operating system. --Teancum (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't have done that research, because the Wikipedia article states that it includes things like software frameworks, such as Steam. We don't list Steam in the platform field, because our criteria in the infobox is stricter than that - we've generally limited it to operating systems and virtual machines. A distributor is not just a store front, cloud streaming is a form of distribution. - hahnchen 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This interview is particularly informative. In his answer to the first question, OnLive CEO Steve Perlman states that for some older games OnLive constructs custom virtual machines to run them in. In that case, I don't see how it would be practical to list the platform as anything other than "OnLive". – Zntrip 05:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That video explicitly states that they run the original Deus Ex in a virtualised Windows 98 environment. The Deus Ex executable is a Windows executable. I would place OnLive in the distribution field. - hahnchen 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A virtualized Windows 98 environment is not the same as Windows 98. OnLive builds custom virtual machines for older games. – Zntrip 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the same. Nothing has changed regarding Deus Ex, it sits on a Windows 98 machine, which sits on top of some hypervisor. If I run Android apps on BlueStacks, it's still an Android app, regardless of where it is and what bells and whistles have been placed around it. - hahnchen 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note (that a VM is irrelevant) consider that games like The Simpsons Arcade Game are simply the arcade ROMs with an emulator wrapper around them--effectively the same thing. The fact remains that it runs on platform-specific hardware. The virtual machine that runs it doesn't change anything. --Teancum (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to raise this in a further discussion. What caught my eye wasn't The Simpsons, but Virtual Console games which fall into the same bucket. I think we should move that into the distribution field too. The platform field should be developer focused - what was this app built for? The distribution field should be for end users - how can I access this? I was going to start a separate conversation once this one had finished. - hahnchen 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normalizing to avoid marketing

After a lot of thought there is probably some rationale to include games-via-cloud (eg OnLive) and games-via-browser (eg Bastion on Chrome) in the platform field. What I don't think we should be doing is naming specific services unless they are uniquely offered by one specific service (due to exclusive rights, software requirements, etc.). So, Bastion would be available on Xbox 360 (via XBLA), PC (via Steam), and browser (via Google Chrome); this is as opposed to saying that it is X360, PC, and Google Chrome.

Basically, what I think I'm saying is that for the "platform" field in the infobox, it should take the form <platform> [<service>], where:

  • "platform" is any of the standard game console hardware platforms; or for personal computer games, the name of the operating system (eg Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux); or for mobile games, the name of the operating system (eg iOS, Android); or "browser" (for web-browser based games) and "cloud" (for cloud/streaming games).
  • "service" should be used only if the game on that platform is offered through a specific singular service and no other - and this should be an assurance that only that service will ever offer the game (eg FortressCraft, if I understand that situation accurately, would list OnLive; on the other hand, Batman: AC would not since (as best I can tell) both Gaikai and OnLive offer it.) The service shouldn't be added just because that service got the game a month ahead of another, for example.

We can't normalize away specific hardware like the Xbox 360 and the like, but we can normalize when there's more ambiguity in how the game is played at the end to avoid giving any specific service vendor more priority than others. No, we can't get away from the situation like Steam where games that use Steamworks are required to played via the Steam client even if you can buy the titles from other services; the service is still "Steam"), but with the platforms like Onlive, Gaikai, and Chrome, we can do some steps. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would one write OnLive -- "cloud (OnLive)" or separately as "OnLive"? What about multiple cloud gaming platforms -- just "cloud"? Are you saying we list "PC (Steam)", even if available from Desura or somewhere, because of Steamworks? What about when Steam is offered on both PC and Mac, how would that be written? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment Gaikai only offers demo versions of games. But that may change later this year. --141.84.69.20 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steam goes in the distribution field. XBLA could as well, although I'd probably just omit it. I would put OnLive and Gaikai in the distribution field. Chrome is an OS, it runs its own native code, it's not just some SDK. - hahnchen 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above example for Bastion is Google Chrome browser, not Google Chrome OS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference. The browser runs its own native code within a sandbox. - hahnchen 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a game is only available via cloud gaming through Onlive, it would be written as "Cloud (OnLive)". If multiple cloud platforms exist, then "Cloud" is all that is said (to avoid store favoritism).
If the game is a PC game that requires Steamworks - which means that you generally are getting a code to plug into Steam to activate the game regardless of which vendor you use - it is "Microsoft Windows (Steam)". Similarly, Battlefield 3 would be "Microsoft Windows (Origin)" since it requires Origin to run and is activated the same way, even though multiple vendors sell the game to be activated on the series. On the other hand, something like the Witcher 2 which has the CD Projekt DRM-free version and the Steam version, would just be "Microsoft Windows"; there's probably lots of indie titles from the various Indie Bundles that also work this same way with a steam code and a DRM-free version from a different service, and in such cases we give no favoritism in the infobox to one service or another. I compare this to how you can buy XBLA games from Amazon but you are basically getting the activation code to dl the game from the XBL service, ergo that would still be "Xbox 360 (XBLA)" for platform.
The Bastion in Chrome OS would be the case where the platform is "Browser game (Google Chrome)" since it (presently) the only browser that supports it. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assault Heroes 2 is now available on Onlive. What shall we now add on it's infobox? "Cloud(Onlive)" in the distribution field, or just add "Cloud" or "Onlive"? And what do we do in the platform field? Presumably it's running on Windows, so we could add that but on the other hand we don't know that for sure (and again: it might be confusing to add it if people have no way to really play it on any of their windows devices natively without using Onlive). --141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was about to get bot archived so I'm typing some text in the vain hope of a resolution Adycarter (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can add 
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:00 1 January 2200 (UTC) -->
At the top of the discussion to prevent archiving, or to add a set extension to a specific date. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a summary

So this went round in circles for a bit, then this fell dead, just like every other time. If we can't agree its a platform (because seemingly as proven above we don't know how Wikipedia deemed anything a Platform) can we agree it goes in the distribution method field? If so can someone get a bot to do it? Last time I tried to make changes to a multitude of articles I was told to use a bot, which I don't have. Assumption would be we place "OnLive" in the distribution method because "Cloud" is even less useful in most of these cases. Of course this is going to look weird for those Xbox 360 games OnLive has in regards to the Platform still only listing Xbox but nevermind... Adycarter (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was at least some agreement on listing "Cloud (OnLive)" as a platform. This seems reasonable to me. – Zntrip 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now listing services games are available on in the distribution field. Such as XLIG in Weapon of Choice (video game). Would do the same with OnLive. - hahnchen 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible to me Adycarter (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think there wasn't a clear consensus on its status as a platform, but all parties seemed to concede it would be appropriate to list it as a distributor. --Teancum (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am very much opposed to putting OnLive as a distributor in the infobox. If the idea is that OnLive is merely a storefront like Steam, why not list Steam, Gamestop, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com as well? What, exactly, is the difference as far as distribution goes? If you're thinking that Steam qualifies while Gamestop does not because Steam is required to authenticate a game license, that authentication is minimally related to distribution. The correct field for that would be DRM (a surprisingly unpopular proposal) and even requirements would be a better fit under that rationale. And while I'm not crazy about "XBLA" or "Xbox Live Indie Games", at least they tend to have a monopoly and tight integration with the platform (a platform which is increasingly indistinguishable from the distribution channel, I might add).
Whatever the case, I'd like to see a well organized discussion and !vote before anyone takes action. I would not like to see a repeat of the above mess. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If thats your feeling then how exactly would we deal with FortressCraft, Tec3000 and Assault Heroes 2 for example? They are available on the Xbox and on OnLive, no PC versions exist? Cloud(OnLive) is clearly a distribution method at the very least. Adycarter (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I need to point out that there's a difference between distribution method and distributor. I see now that no one was actually suggesting that OnLive, Inc acts as a distributor, but some of my above objection applies to OnLive being listed as a distribution method as well. As per the template documentation, the correct label would be "cloud computing" (one of the "only values possible", no less) and that's exactly what I would put in those articles. I can think of precisely one good reason to append "(OnLive)" to that label: it would clarify that it is not the Xbox 360 version that is distributed via cloud but rather the OnLive platform version. But if OnLive's status as a platform is hotly contested, then it stands to reason that this rationale should be hotly contested. Do you have a different reason? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply list "Cloud Computing" under distribution method then how exactly would we deal with FortressCraft, Tec3000 and Assault Heroes 2 for example? They are available on the Xbox and on OnLive only. If OnLive isn't a platform and it isn't a distribution method and all we're going to list anywhere is cloud computing then it just seems a bit strange to me, its akin to just listing "Consoles" or "DVDs" on titles instead of what they're actually available on. Seems a bit encyclopaedic/uninformative to me. Adycarter (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Cloud computing" is too vague for a distribution method. Gaikai and OnLive have significant differences between the two, but they're both cloud. I would keep the distribution field for specific services that the developer has to alter the game for, so I'd place Steam in there if it were Steamworks enabled. But if it's just a generic download through Steam, then I would just note "download". - hahnchen 21:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we've already established every title has to be altered for OnLive, different SDK, 'platform' specific features and adding touch input etc etc, so what do we do? With regards to Gaikai its still only "distributing" demos so thats surely as irrelevant as listing magazine cover discs? Adycarter (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out my rationale as to place OnLive, Steam, Gaikai and other such services in the distribution field. That's the "different reason" that Meth asks. The whole point was that these services are not necessarily platforms, but aren't just straight distribution channels. - hahnchen 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which I concur with, I was just pre-empting the inevitable "they just sell things like anyone else" claim which keeps coming back up. As we both seem to agree that they aren't perhaps platforms but are worth more than just a generic "cloud" distribtuion method list I feel this is probably the sanest approach to be taking and the one we need to probably get a !VOTE going on if thats indeed the correct process Adycarter (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see any agreement on that. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ButOnMethItIs: your general premise that "OnLive is merely a storefront like Steam" is false. It is both a platform and a distributor and is therefore a unique case (hence the protracted discussion). If you read through the comments you will find that many points were raised and that the consensus appears to be "Cloud (OnLive)" at the very least. However, the definition of "platform" for the purposes of a video game infobox have greatly been relaxed and I see no reason to preclude listing just "OnLive" since I am increasingly seeing "Facebook", "Adobe Flash", "HTML5", and "Google Chrome" listed. – Zntrip 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ""Facebook", "Adobe Flash", "HTML5", and "Google Chrome"" stuff is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because its in another article doesn't mean its the accepted norm. - X201 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not MY premise. That's a view that's been expressed by many editors, none of which are me, in many discussions over the past few years. As to consensus above, I found none when discussions were ongoing and I find none now. I think you're confused and that you should re-read everything more carefully. Personally, I wouldn't start adding OnLive or similar items to the infobox without consensus, given the history of reversion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
X201: My argument was that the definition of "platform" is being relaxed and that list was just a few examples. I'm simply pointing to a developing norm of including things other than consumer-end hardware for "platform". That has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and please remember that essays are not policy. – Zntrip 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ButOnMethItIs: I apologize, I did misunderstand the point you were making about distribution. I think you are right about this discussion dragging on long enough and perhaps it would be best to take a vote. We could contact editors who have made posts in the section (although voting would be open to everyone, of course) to be inclusive. What would the options be? It appears that at least four were presented in the above discussion: (1) doing nothing (i.e. status quo, whatever that may be); (2) listing "OnLive (cloud)", "Cloud (OnLive), or some other variation as a distribution method; (3) listing "OnLive (cloud)", "Cloud (OnLive), or some other variation as a platform; or (4) listing "OnLive" as a platform. – Zntrip 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psygnosis/SCE Studio Liverpool

Just a note to inform people here that I've split Psygnosis back out from SCE Studio Liverpool. -- Trevj (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool § Split of Psygnosis

-- Trevj (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • This discussion needs input from everyone at WP:VG. It's becoming... well, have a read yourself. :-s - X201 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second this. Could one or two other people active here please take a look at this. You don't need to be interested in the topic or the outcome of the discussion. We have a really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod and this situation needs to be resolved. I don't want to go through the hassle of an administrative proceeding with this guy, and further input on the situation (even if you guys actually disagree with X201 and myself) could help make that unnecessary. Indrian (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Err, are you guys familiar with WP:CANVASS. Please retract your influential statement about me being a really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod. In the interests of neutrality, the other relevant WikiProjects also require notifying. If you're unwilling to do this in a non-influential manner, I could do so myself by using the {{Pls}} template. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trevj, you have taken Indrian's comment and then attributed it to both of us. I can't see how my comment breaches WP:CANVASS, which is the implication of your post. Obviously you didn't know that I was creating the RFC at the same time, but the insinuation of bias is not welcome. - X201 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your disruptive behavior is self-evident. Even if your views on the policy disputes are found to be correct, the manner in which you have engaged in this discussion has not been constructive. I stand by that statement unequivocally. Indrian (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This is the most relevant WikiProject and there's no issue with asking the opinions of people here. personal attacks still should be avoided. Salvidrim! 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Labeling an editor disruptive is not a personal attack if the editor's behavior is at the heart of the current controversy and the primary reason that additional eyes are needed on this issue (yours would certainly be appreciated, again regardless of whether you agree with my position or not). While others may categorize his behavior differently upon examining the record and are entitled to that opinion, I think there is enough evidence there to look into the matter. Indrian (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't particularily mean that there has been personal attacks, I simply wanted to remind everyone involved to avoid them. I haven't looked into the subject itself, but from an overview of the discussion, it seems a fairly coherent and civil content dispute. I don't think it is fair to call either side "intentionally disruptive" here. Salvidrim! 14:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will agree that the discussion has been pretty civil, though I would characterize it as a policy dispute not a content dispute because no one is advocating the elimination of content, only debating its placement. The disruption comes in the form of actions (undertaking the initial split without discussion and then claiming this was a valid revert of an edit made three years ago, adding an unjustified notability tag, since removed, perhaps in violation of WP:POINT, and then undertaking a targeted redirect that in a vacuum may appear harmless, but which directly touches on the earlier discussion and appears to be pushing a viewpoint that the [admittedly small] current consensus has already rejected, therefore raising WP:OWN concerns). A few more eyes on the underlying issues and a firm consensus either way would end this quickly and without any permanently damaged feelings. Indrian (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            without any permanently damaged feelings Support. -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the discussion to the RFC list for Companies and Media. - X201 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've amended with what I consider to be a more neutral statement.[2][3][4] Please amend further if necessary. -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... Not sure the bot will take the amendment. If not, then what do we do? -- Trevj (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit notice says that any user changes will be over written, and to alter the RFC on the talk page. I presume it checks back to get the latest version. - X201 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale (Resistance) and Joseph Capelli

I'd just like to bring attention to the above two pages. They've been created in the past couple of weeks. I suspect them to be unattributed copy-and-paste of some Wikia articles or another. Seeing as they're mostly plot, they should probably be merged or be cleaned up (brought into line with WP:VG/GL). Anyone want to poke them? --Izno (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I !vote redirection. I would be shocked if there's anything worth merging. They certainly wouldn't survive an AfD, so I think any clean up effort would be wasted. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Realm of the Mad God

I would like this article to be upgraded to at least Start in the portal. It has an infobox, a logo and a lot of information about the game. Could someone please review it? Shaun9876 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, article assessment requests can be lodged at WP:VG/A/R. :) Salvidrim! 18:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shaun9876 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast lists

I've started a discussion about updating/changing/clarifying the Cast List part of the Inappropriate Content section of the Article Guidelines.


The discussion is here - X201 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon question

Hi, I've recently posted a question at WikiProject Pokemon but I haven't received any feedback. If anyone here is familiar with the Pokemon series and might be able to shed a little light on the issue I've identified, please comment here. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VGratings template up for deletion

The VGratings template is up for deletion. See - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#May_23 apparently similar ones for film and TV have been deleted and the video game one is next in the firing line. Don't know what the rational for deletion of the others was. - X201 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: In 2009 WP:FILM moved to excluded ratings from their infobox for reasons such as systemic bias etc. Rather than have indiscriminate listing of ratings, they now focus on ratings in prose if they have been controversial or note worthy. So despite my inital shock, I agree with that idea, it would mean deleting the ratings field on the infobox, making the infobox shorter :) and push towards prose for exceptional ratings. - X201 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find sources on old and rare games?

Hi there! I'm looking up information for 3D Tetris, a game for the Virtual Boy that received relatively little attention. I found one review in the LA Times through ProQuest, as well as reviews on various fan site of questionable notability. I'm looking for a wider variety of sources, though. Does anyone know where I can find reliable databases of old video game magazines, reviews, and the like? Perhaps there is a research database to that effect. Or where I might find information about them in reliable sources? Some textbooks do mention the Virtual Boy, although I'm not finding a lot on this game in particular. 3D Tetris is not impossible to find - the Virtual Boy was a relatively important console and wasn't released all that long ago. Thanks in advance for your help. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The search at WP:VG/RL brings up one hit for Tetris 3D in Next Generation Magazine. Its a start. - X201 (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SO, SO much. Already I found a review from Game Informer, which is more notable than most of the current sources combined. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another thought. I think there is a (very) brief mention of Tetris 3D in this month's GamesTM, in the Retro collector section, if someone could have a look for CaseyPenk. Would do it myself, but haven't got access to my copy at the moment. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate if someone could do that, X. And if you're talking to me, Thibbs, I can translate. I know a bit of Japanese, which I'd imagine in the most useful in this case. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK I can send a few scans your way too then. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Not sure how you want to pass them along, but you can email me at --MyUsername--@gmail.com if you want. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 4 and images

Okay, so images are one of the few areas on Wikipedia I'm not that knowledgeable about, (which I'm fine with, it typically doesn't interest me) but I'm tired with arguing with the user there, so I figured I'd bring it up here.

So the issue is the main infobox picture at Sonic 4. A month or so ago, User:Zagurzem kept on switching in a logo that was merely the "Sonic the Hedgehog" in text, which I felt was a bad choice, considering the image prior to it already contained the same logo, but also contained an image of Sonic as well. There was no reason to "downgrade" to a picture that captured less of what the game was about. He eventually stopped this, but a week ago, another user added a different, second image to the infobox, and now Zagurzem is proposing using all three images. (See here for what it looks like as of writing this.)

Again, I'm not real familiar with image policy, but I know it's a "keep it to a minimum" type things, which makes me think that three in the infobox alone is excessive. When I try to remove them, he always answers with things like "No, please, give it a shot" or "I think you'll see it my way eventually" rather than giving a real rationale or quoting policy or anything. So I was looking for input/help. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very excessive as it is, just one image image should be sufficient. I don't claim to be an expert on images, but WP:NFCC#8 specifies that they must significantly increase understanding, a single image does does (for identification of the game), any further images would fail #8 by default unless they had coverage explaining why they are otherwise significant. Also the rationales for most of those images is extremely weak, most are just "yes", "no" or "n.a."... Яehevkor ✉ 18:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...And that's why I most strongly objected to the one that is strictly the "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" text logo, as it's the worst as far as helping identify the game... Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's on two options as I see it -- 1) Post the text-based logo, or 2) Post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for Sonic 4: Episode II". As of now it's not clear. I'd go with the Ep II logo, personally as the background has been removed and thus will work fine on all themes used by Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that; I only object to using all three, or using just the text based one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support using the stylized text logo only. It's the only logo representative of the game as a whole. The other two logos only represent portions of the game, and would thus be appropriate for the pages Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I and Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II, if they existed, but not for representing the game as a whole. The question you face, if you want to include either the Episode I or the Episode II logo, is why that particular one? I see that as a fair use issue as well; the Episode I logo is not essential to illustrating the game, and is thus of questionable fair use. Ultimately, I think the stylized text logo communicates the necessary components that a logo should communicate (that is, the artistic style of the subject and the name of the subject). If you want to illustrate the characters there's leeway for character artwork later in the article. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the images of SOnic and Tails vary little from their appearance on their respect character pages, they are extremely redundant here and fail NFCC#8, NFCC#3a. The text based logo is all that is needed. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Really? Text best illustrates a platformer video game like this? *Sigh* this is why I stay away from image stuff in general I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the infobox image (cover or logo). A screenshot of the game is fine but that's not the point of contention. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're all logos though. Look here, at the image that was originally used for the articles existence up until the last few weeks. It's description is "Xbox Live logo", and while it's from "Episodes 1", it doesn't specifically mention episode 1 anywhere, and it shares the art style of both games. I don't understand how this isn't the better option. It's a logo that not only contains all of the text option, but character art as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost positive that File:Sonic_4_Logo.png is a derivative work of the Episode I logo, meaning that a fan created it. I don't think it's anything that Sega actually released, because that logo in that form is never used alone in the actual game. As User:Masem points out above, you can illustrate the characters on their own later in the article if you feel artwork or screenshots are necessary within specific sections. The infobox is the most basic, irreducible element of the page in that it strictly conveys the core information about the game. There's no need to concatenate the character imagery with the stylized logo-text, because the stylized text logo itself is just as descriptive and uses a smaller portion of the original, copyrighted work. In any case, I think we need to focus on the core of the discussion. I'm not thinking about "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 article?" I'm thinking, "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 infobox?" And I don't see the need to do the latter. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the specific policy to which User:Masem was referring does apply here. "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see the inclusion of the character artwork as essential. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) At the risk of shifting the topic, I'm not sure the article as-is is constructed in a useful way. Every section has both an Ep I and Ep II sub-section, which suggests to me that it may be better if it were either split or re-factored significantly. If it were split, then using one logo for one game's article and the other for the other (assuming the Ep II logo is actually real RE CaseyPenk's comment) would solve the problem pretty easily. This would probably be fine since it isn't far off the size required for a size-only split anyway. However, it seems to me that re-organising the article may be a better way forward, at least for now. I'd suggest that a shift to a generalised portion for each section with additional Ep I and Ep II sub-sections would be more appropriate; I'm not sure how this would apply to plot or reception, but it certainly could be easily applied to gameplay (any Ep I or Ep II specific elements get their own sub-section, with the universal bit as the super-section - this seems to be more or less how it's organised anyway, with Ep I mostly representing generalised gameplay). Anyway, I digress.
Assuming the article is left as one, I think the only applicable infobox logo is probably the text-only one since the Ep I logo doesn't represent Ep II at all, and nor does the inverse. I'm not sure how his would fit with the non-free files policy, but the episode logos could always be included in the prose somewhere.
There's also another thing to think about - I'm not sure the text logo is copyright-eligible; it is only stylised text after all, so {{pd-textlogo}} may apply (see Threshold of originality). If that were the case, then copyright issues would be significantly simplified.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of splitting the article, but when I raised it on the article's talk page, the only person who chimed in was someone who said splitting was against precedent for episodic games. (I've never worked on any myself, so I wasn't sure.) Then the game was leaked, and released, and it was enough work just to keep the article cleaned up, let alone splitting and whatnot. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross, I am so sorry about all of this. After reading your long message to me, I now understand my mistakes.

We should just use the logo that was used in the first place in order to not cause any more trouble. I see that there was some controversy regarding the non-free usage of the images that I wanted to use. Before I uploaded the images, I read the policy and thought I was in the clear, but I guess I wasn't. Am I going to go to jail or something???

I meant well when I was editing the Sonic pages. I just wanted information that was accurate because I have been a fan of Sonic since I was seven. I am not the most experienced person with Wikipedia, but I am learning more thanks to you guys helping me.

I will continue editing Wikipedia, but I will most likely refrain from uploading images from now on.

I hope you guys understand. User:Zagurzem —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You're not going to jail, the worst that happens is that they delete the images. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zagurzem, now isn't the time to stop uploading images. Every single one of us here has made mistakes on WP at some point. WP tends to operate on a version of the old medical model of "see one", "do one", "kill one", "teach one". - X201 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Sergecross' idea to "post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for Sonic 4: Episode II" is a pretty good idea as well. That way, it is kept up to date with the latest installment. And if/when an Episode III comes out, we can replace it with that logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liking all the compromise I'm seeing. As long as we're up-front about the fact that we're including the logo for one particular episode, I think it will work effectively. I subscribe to inclusionism and would support splitting the main article into, well, "episodic" articles if you will. There is certainly enough information for each to have its own page, and the segmentation has already developed cleanly between the episodes as User:Alphathon pointed out above.
User:Zagurzem, let me reiterate what other have been saying - don't let this discourage you. You've clearly already learned some valuable lessons that will serve you well. I remember, several years ago, being embarrassed at my lack of experience and I made some rather significant mistakes - moving entire scores of pages to new categories without consensus, for example. The problems were easy enough to fix, though, and the world didn't end (at least not yet). You haven't done anything egregious, so keep doing what you're doing. I'm personally happy to see someone already engaged in these intricate discussions, for being a relatively new user. Keep at it, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sony POV discussion

Hi everyone! As I was reading the Sony article I came across some patterns that I found very troubling - first, a lack of objective information and historical context; second, an overwhelmingly negative and critical approach found in most sections. I started a discussion located at Talk:Sony#POV problems. Whether you share my concerns or see the issue differently, please provide your input and chip in with some constructive edits to the main article. I appreciate any help. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remake in vidéo game

This page List of video game remakes is completely wrong. And is similar at the categorie:vidéo game remakes where there is, the same, a lot of games who aren't remake but simply "Porting" or re edition. LatinoSeuropa (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page states "This list includes updated versions of original games and remastered ports", I'm not sure what the confusion is about? Salvidrim! 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now at AFD on the grounds that 90% of the content is wrong.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=494549788"