Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)

Video games: Indie Start‑class Low‑importance

This article 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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Notability

My prod template was removed with the edit comment "Game has been published in multiple print sources, and the Steam page is a higher Google result than the Wikipedia page for the Biblical story.)". If there are reliable sources in print, please add them to the article. All I see at present is links to blog-like reviews. The remark about Google is not convincing either. I'll leave it a couple of days for acceptable references to be provided. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it add considerably to the notability, that it's the newest work of the well-established and renown video game designer Edmund McMillen? Spiderboy (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action RPG

Could this game also fit in the Action Role Playing Game genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.73.241 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roguelike

Removed the roguelike genre as the game is not actually a roguelike, one of the reasons is it not having turn based gameplay. http://roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.122.53 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the page you linked specifies that a game absolutely must be turn-based to be considered a roguelike. Since the game has 5 of the 8 "high value factors" (and 3 of the 6 low value ones) listed on that page, it's actually more than 50% roguelike. Read the second and third paragraphs of the "General Principles" section on the linked page before you sperg out and remove the genre again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.188 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since an IP is trying to remove this again, I stress the point that 69.* points out above - it doesn't met the strict Berlin definition, but has more than enough in common with those. Further, numerous sources attach the word "roguelike" to this. So there's no reason not to call it a roguelike. We just can't call it a "Berlin Interpretation" roguelike. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a roguelike - It might fulfill some of the criteria, but it isn't turn based, which is a requirement. I'd be happy to change it to "roguelike-like" (Which is, in fact, a genre), but as someone who is essentially an expert on the topic, I can't allow for it to stay as a "roguelike". --User:Bens dream (t) 21:51, 30 June 2013 (GMT)

The problem is that what a "roguelike" is is not limited to the roguelikes that exactly meet the Berlin Interpretation, based on how much the word is thrown around today with games like this, FTL, Rogue Legacy, etc in reliable sources. It's considered part of this larger genre, but clearly its not a strict rogue-like game. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term is thrown around pretty loosely, but should fact be sacrificed for a social convention? Sites like IGN or other major gaming sites calling them roguelikes doesn't make them right, it just makes them part of the masses who don't understand what a roguelike actually is. Ben 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)

We go by what sources say, and by the reliable sources used by our project, they have effectively shifted what the definition of a roguelike is. This is why its clear on the roguelike page that there's the classical/Berlin approach, and the more modern one that generally related to a subset of said features. As WP, if a large number of sources are using a term in a "wrong" but otherwise consistent manner, we can't change that in how we report information. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can agree with that. If the whole world starts calling a horse's leg a "tail", how many legs does the horse have? It still has four, regardless of what society thinks. Ben 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)

It's not that journalists are creating a brand new definition of what a roguelike is, but simply instead of saying "a roguelike must have all the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" that "a roguelike has many of the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" (Which is true - Binding has procedural generated dungeons and permadeath, for example). We're not talking about a complete corruption of the definition, just a broadening of the term to include more games within it. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this game is not a fucking roguelike you fucking nimrods. wikipedia is an extremely popular website and if you are going to propagate incorrect assumptions with no regard for the facts then i guess i understand why this website isnt allowed as a source for college papers. fuck all of the people who think this game is a roguelike, fuck everyone defending the choice of words, and fuck anyone else who never played rogue games and yet still uses the label so wantonly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.9.29 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your trolling elsewhere please, this game is not only a roguelike but the original of it is the very game that brought the entire genre out of obscurity where it was rotting in since the mid 90s. By the way, you can consider every new room entered as a turn if it suits you.37.191.217.214 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

music

This games features some outstanding music that has great overall impact to set the mood. The article should detail this at least mention the music composer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.223.11 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BoI: Rebirth logo

File:Binding of Isaac Rebirth.jpg

I've posted this picture in the article twice for Rebirth's infobox, but it has been removed by Masem both times. Why shouldn't the logo be included? I don't know. I've been told to bring this to the talk page. [Soffredo] 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-free image, so it has to meet our WP:NFCC policy. In general, we only allow one cover image on an article about a published work (per WP:NFCI#1), any additional cover art needs to have sourced discussion about the image. In this case, Rebirth is only a remake (not a new game) and the logo is very similar to the original game's logo, so we cannot include the Rebirth cover here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

controversy

Hasn't the anti-religious misotheistic message of this title drawn controversy? --134.193.229.228 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess something about this should probably be in the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And having looked, it is! Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But not coverage of how the story actually relates to the Biblical original. Unlike what would've happened in existent forms of religion surrounding Abraham, Isaac was not in fact sacrificed, which was the whole point of the original text: an end to human sacrifices, not an encouragement of it. --99.185.229.78 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that isn't covered by the source I doubt it would add to the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I don't think Rebirth needs its own article given that 90% of the core game elements are the same. There's a few more things to add and we'd treat a reception separatly, but this article is no means too large to support that. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge The article for Rebirth needs to be vastly improved. Pointing to sections of this article is inappropriate; however, I don't feel that they should be merged. While the gameplay and plot are similar, Rebirth features much more content than The Binding of Isaac. A major expansion to Rebirth is already in the works that will further differentiate it from Isaac. If anything, this is similar to the Madden/Fifa games that are released every year and which always receive new articles. More importantly, Rebirth appears to meet GNG on its own based on it's coverage in sources. Ryan Vesey 08:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that Rebirth meets the GNG, but we don't require an article on a topic that meets the GNG. And while in terms of content Rebirth is much more expansive, when you condense that down to what is encyclopedic-appropriate content, there's not much new to discuss. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it's a remake, not even an expansion. Different articles cause confusion.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge "...not even an expansion"? How do you figure that, exactly? There are new playable characters, a new co-op mode, new items, new rooms, a new level, new bosses... sounds like a bit more than a remake to me. Anyway, they're also separate games with separate reviews that have generated separate conversations. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge It is definitely an expansion, a lot of new things were put in. -- 37.191.217.214 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — 37.191.217.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But for the purposes of an encyclopedia, 90% of the details of the game are the same as the original; we would mention the remake includes new bosses and items, for example, but we wouldn't enumerate them. The added reviews would be separate, yes, but we have handled that before. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They really are two different games, I don't think a merge would be necessary. It would be a different story if Rebirth was just an expansion, but it's not. A lot of information might be redundant, but that's OK given that someone looking for one of these games will just be looking or one or the other, not both. Trevor1324 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They share the same gameplay (save some additional details in Rebirth), the same plot. The core development is the same, there's only a few more things to add in for Rebirth. The reception will be different but we handle that all the time on remastered versions of games. While I agree they are separate games, covering separately from the concept of an encyclopedia is not appropriate. If Rebirth was a full sequel, that might be different, but it's a remastered/expansion. And in terms of helping readers find the targets, redirects will help. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you really feel like it's necessary go ahead, but my concern would be people looking for Rebirth and only being able to find an article that is titled The Binding of Isaac, thus causing confusion. Plus, a lot of people will be looking for information on just Rebirth because they already know everything about the original. It seems like merging the two would just force these people to search through what they already know in order to find what they are looking for. I just don't see a pressing need for them to merge.Trevor1324 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some questions for Masem. Can you give a rough description of what the merged article would look like? The title, would it be "The Binding of Isaac (video game)"? The lead, would it contain both game names in bold font? Would the Rebirth article get a general redirect to the merged article or will it redirect to a section? Would the merged article contain two 'Infobox video game' blocks? Would both § Development and § Release of Rebirth be merged into the section within § Development and release? That's quite a bit of text, would some of it (need to) be removed? Would the future DLC for Rebirth be mentioned in another section in 'Development and release'? The Reception section would get two level 3 headings? What would be the primary reason(s) be for merging? Is there a policy or guideline that applies to the current situation that suggests merging? The suggestion of merging the articles seems justified, but I understand some editors' fear that Rebirth might become too much of a side note in the merged article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]