Jump to content

Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.1.183.14 (talk) at 17:43, 20 July 2016 (→Roguelike). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games: Indie GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the indie task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

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]
This really isn't a roguelike, though, and the idea that Binding of Isaac "brought the entire genre out of obscurity" is just plain ignorant. If any roguelike-like deserves that distinction, it's Diablo, or Spelunky. Binding of Isaac was late to the party.

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]

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

RESOLVED
Consensus against a Rebirth merge, poorly argued with no policy-backed rationale or sources cited. My personal comments below this section. – czar 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
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]
    • There might be a second infobox for Rebirth, but near the top. There would probably be a subheading of Development to talk about the Rebirth stuff (note that some of the content under the Release section there is highly speculative of its importance to Wikipedia). There would likely be separate sections for reception, original and Rebirth. The primary reason for merging is that, unlike a sequel, these two games are tightly linked, and you cannot talk comprehensively about one without discussing the other, and as such, it makes sense to talk about them on the same page. Particularly with as little development information as there is about it. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Rebirth is a different game, created in a new engine, with plenty of additional content and significant graphical and aural changes. —Flax5 14:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to come across as a know-it-all, and I'm no Wikipedia expert, but... "Rebirth is a different game" This is a fact. "Created in a new engine." Fact. "Plenty of additional content and significant graphical and aural changes." Fact. Your contribution includes no argument(s), I think. It could be the start of a discussion, sure. I could, for example, respond with a statement that the merged article could simply state that Rebirth uses a new engine. That the merged article could give a rough description of what content has been changed, and so on. But it's easier if you list your argument(s) against merging. "It would increase the size of the merged article, which would negatively impact readability. The resulting article would become too long/clunky." would be an example of an argument. (One that I personally disagree with, by the way.) Why should there be two articles? If Rebirth's Development+Release are pasted into this article, and Rebirth's Reception is clearly separated using a level 3 heading, what exactly will be the problem(s) readers will run into? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't want to imply crystal balling, I feel that Rebirth will only act as a parasite to the quality of the original game's article. The problem isn't notability, IMO, it's that no one has put the effort into expanding either articles beyond being very short Start-class articles. Weak(ish) oppose. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge. Rebirth is not the original game and name, they shouldn't be treated the same. This is the same as taking a movie title (such as Fast and Furious) and putting every single sequel onto the one page. Anarchyte (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say though - I will bring this back to a merge discussion if people don't expand this article to give it depth. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rebirth is not just a simple update or remake. It's a new game based on some core elements of original/previous game, but added its own unique gameplay features too. Rebirth is more similar to a sequel/reboot. Also the future dlcs and expansions will make Rebirth more different than the original game. --Zyma (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • A half-year after the proposal, the Rebirth article has not progressed much and is not summarized well in the main article. Feel free to boldly merge more of Rebirth into the main article whether or not the former is kept separate. – czar 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting this: in finding a few articles that explain how Rebirth came to be while adding them here, Rebirth is clearly a remake, not an entirely new game. There's nearly no development aspects of Rebirth that are not tied to the development from the base game, so more than ever a merge makes more sense here. Just because Rebirth has more items and objects, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is the same game as the original Binding. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: The Development section and the 2 new DLCs added for :Rebirth would be too large to merge into this article. The Gameplay section needs updating so that it contains more info on the new bosses from Rebirth, Afterbirth and Afterbirth†. The only thing that is basically the same is the plot and even that was changed, with the cutscenes after each "Mom" and "Moms Heart" fight. Anarchyte 10:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Since details of gameplay like bosses is gamecruft and not included, there is no real new gameplay to add from rebirth. The only two key additions are the two expansions from rebirth as Development, and reception of Rebirth, both which easily fit into this and keep the article well within size requirements. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Overall it is a well-written article, but sourcing seems to be inadequate. The reception section needs some more work, but overall the article is in a relatively good shape. I will left the article on hold for a week. When all the issues are addressed it will be good to go! AdrianGamer (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get to these over the next few days but a few points:
  • I have no idea why that Wired article speaks of different classes because that never existed in the game.
  • Keep in mind that The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth is considered a separate game with its own article. While I will source that paragraph more, this is important as some of the added sources you put are for Rebirth and not this game and don't give new info on this game. To that same end, the DLC for this game should be quoted as "Wrath of the Lamb" rather than italized as if a new game. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianGamer: I still need to see about trying to expand the reception but if you want to take a look, I have done pretty much everything else on the list. I did figure out what the Wired article was going on with the classes so fixed that up, and incorporated a few of the additional sources. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianGamer: Just an FYI, I got caught up in other life stuff and will likely not be able to get to expanding the reception out a bit until early next week. I still plan to do this, just that can't do a fair job over the next few days. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take your time. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianGamer: I've gotten the reception section expanded out now, that should be it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game was also nominated for an award.[1] I also found another source about the game's music. It may have some valuable information.[2] There is a retail edition as well.[3] Would be great if you can add these information into the article as well. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all three pieces as well as bit from the ArsTech source above. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As all the issues were fixed, the article is good to go! The Binding of Isaac is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Binding_of_Isaac_(video_game)&oldid=730688152"