Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Technology section of video game articles

[edit]

I am simply curious about just how in-depth should a technology section for a video game article be. For instance, the section in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle goes very deeply into very technical stuff, like mentioning the exact number of hair strands, and spending lots of time discussing platform parity. I know Digital Foundry runs a lot of articles on the technical states of video games (like mentioning how many p/fps/GB they can reach), but at the same time I also felt that they are a bit WP:GAMECRUFT-y, being only tangential to the actual development and being quite hard for general readers to follow. OceanHok (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be reworked a little, to make sure we're speaking in "laymans terms" for the general audiences Wikipedia strives to write for, but overall, I think its good information to include when we actually have reliable sources verifing and covering it. (I often have to remove it more on the grounds of it being WP:OR or pulled from forums/social media type "sources".) Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's nice to have good information from an editor who clearly appears knowledgeable, especially if it's from reliable sources (and not, say Wccftech), but it should definitely be trimmed and rephrased for the layperson. I fully support your initiative to start a talk discussion to discuss the section in more detail; now it's just up to other editor/s to engage productively. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a lot of information, a rule-of-thumb you can sometimes use to ascertain what is most relevant, is to look at the human angle. Ideally, we would at least cover what decisions humans made and why, or what opinions humans hold of it. If you can say "the developer made this technological choice because...", that's useful. If you can say "reception was negative on this technological choice," that is also useful. That being said, I like seeing a lot of detail, and if it's sourced to secondary sources then humans obviously care about the information, so I like keeping stuff like that in. It may just need to be contextualized. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like others say, the main issue is probably one of accessibility, but also due weight. If the only sources for nitty-gritty details like that are developer docs or GDC presentations, it probably should be glossed further, and while Digital Foundry can be a great secondary source they're also discussing things at a level probably not appropriate for a general audience reference work. Frankly I think the GA review should have caught that the tech section is nearly incomprehensible if you aren't a hardcore gaming fan, and still hard to read even if you are ( Indiana Jones and the Great Circle makes use of Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps... what are Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps? Why should I care?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 08:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section was created after the GA review was passed. I agree that it is undue as well. I think it is fine to have 2-3 paragraphs discussing the technical state of broken games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Battlefield 4 at launch, but two whole paragraphs here is way too much. Given Digital Foundry is a tech review (an observation of the game's technical state), they don't actually discuss the game's development. Right now, I think this information don't really fit anywhere in our typical article framework (gameplay/plot/development/reception). OceanHok (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackstardust16: is the editor involved in creating this section. Please have a look at the general recommendations here. Please stop wholesale reverting other editors who are trying to improve on what you have written. You are showing a very strong WP:OWN tendency. OceanHok (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ignore technology because video games as a medium is where technology and art meet. Whether it is the first games with 3D computer graphics, Doom 3's advances in shadow rendering, or the technical demands of Crysis, it is notable for how video games have evolved as a medium and what new technology they introduced. Just because personally don't understand or care about it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Articles on things like physics, biology and medicine are significantly more complex in their writing because it is unavoidable as the subject itself is complex. Please don't insult the intelligence of readers by dumbing down information to a childlike level. Blackstardust16 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is debating deleting the section, simply making it more accessable. I agree that it is too technical. For example, "The path tracing implementation does not use ReSTIR Direct Lighting so some lighting is still using a rasterisation-based pipeline. Path tracing fully replaces static cube maps used on glass reflections." I have a fairly high degree of technical knowledge, I took a computer graphics course in university and have messed around quite a bit with this stuff in the past. I can barely read this. I don't know what "ReSTIR Direct Lighting", "rasterisation-based pipelines", or "static cube maps" are and I'm not sure what effect they would have on the technical performance of the game. We are supposed to be writing for a general WP:AUDIENCE. The idea is, if someone's grandma hit "Random article" and ended up on this article would they understand what was going on.
In this case too, we're going into incredible technical detail over what the game isn't. Is it worth breaking out the technical jargon to let a general audience know that the game doesn't contain static cube maps. There is a middle ground here. A lot of this content can be kept but you have to be able to meet people halfway. This is Wikipedia, collaboration is the whole point. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's this thing called links that you can click on. They take you to other pages like ReSTIR so you can read more about it for yourself if you don't know about it. I trust you can figure it out. Blackstardust16 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But why do I need to know more when the game doesn't even use it in the first place? And why is that a vital piece of the article that needs to protected under wholesale revision at all costs. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, that's one of the five pillars, "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed". You do not WP:OWN that section of the article and you need to be willing to come to a comprimise with other editors who have a different opinion than you do. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong. Technology is important for video games, so no one is arguing for its removal. It is great to have a detailed technology section for video games. It is a big pity that no one can actually understand the content or why it is important to this particular game. Always discuss the game for what it is, not what it isn't. I know you will not agree with this, but dumbing down information to a childlike level, is the best way of writing an article for a general encyclopedia where we expect readers to come in with zero knowledge about anything. OceanHok (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, "do not use links as a substitute for explanation; if a technical term can be simply explained in a few words, do so." Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Blackstardust16 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all. I and another editor have been discussing at Talk:Xbox whether to replace the free use Xbox logo with the (likely) non-free glass logo that was introduced last month. I originally thought this would be okay provided the new logo had the correct non-free use rationale applied, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think the glass logo would fall below the threshold of originality given the effects applied to it, and it doesn't make sense to me to replace a free logo with a non-free version.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here, so I thought I'd seek out help from the relevant project and go from there. Thank you all in advance. GSK 14:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit (which I have reverted because it's a botched edit where the background was removed), I would really like there to be a consensus established regarding how this should be handled. Zxcvbnm left a comment here that I read as being against the logo change, but I'm not really sure. GSK 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just changing the logo to the one that Ryan York uploaded [1]. GSK 22:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for X-Wing: Apocalypse and Grand Slam Bridge III

[edit]

This is as I've been clearing my sandbox/backlog. But does anyone see any more sources for these two games? Mentioned here [2] (X-Wing: Apocalypse) and here [3] (Grand Slam Bridge III).

I'm not sure what X-Wing: Apocalypse is really. (mentioned once on that PC Data chart). Grand Slam Bridge III appeared on PC Data charts in April 2000 but that's it. Not other info that I can see online. The original Grand Slam Bridge is what Tim Cain worked on. Timur9008 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is X-Wing: Apocalypse perhaps related to X-COM: Apocalypse? They have the same publisher and year of release, so maybe it's just a typo. The publisher's website only lists X-COM. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that just being some sort of freudian slip for X-COM seems pretty reasonable/likely. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Grand Slam Bridge III: a modestly deep search turned up nothing. I looked across web results, magazines like Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer, and archived developer/publisher websites. If this game actually exists, it's exceedingly rare. or maybe I'm just blind and missed it... Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've yet to find anything else. Timur9008 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 11 to May 17)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.22 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

Are the new "* games among the best" lists just forks of subsets of List of video games listed among the best with consoled-specific ledes (e.g. Nintendo 64 games listed among the best)? I don't see any such discussion at the talk page there, and they seem duplicative at first glance. They're also not tagged with Category:Lists of video games by reception or rating or a navbox template. --PresN 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just notification here, why was I? Monathephantom (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because you created Undertale: The Determination Symphony, Monathephantom. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same thing. Do people really get pinged to this page any time they create an article even remotely related to video games? I'd like to opt-out of that, and I imagine a lot of editors would. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be wrong! Adding you to the ping opt-out list as the 3rd ever person to ask in the 8 years I've been running this script. --PresN 19:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I was surprised but I do appreciate it :D
Thank you for maintaining this! Canadianerk (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most people enjoy the shout out. We get far more complaints that their creation didn't result in a ping due to various glitches or circumstances, honestly. It's only published weekly, and it's only on weeks when you publish a video game related article, so it's not really all that much... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion at the creator's talk page, but no centralized discussion about it, as far as I can tell. They strike me as a bit...excessive? The GameCube lists off about 10% of the console's entire library, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
given that none of the major awards give out platform specific games (excluding mobile and vr), i would agree these are inappropriate forks. Masem (t) 17:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good argument to make with these lists is to look at Operation C (video game). It is listed on the list of Game Boy/Game Boy Color games, and yet if you look at Game Rankings, you see an 80%. A respectable score, but greatest Game Boy game of all time? Furthermore, one of the two review box reviews for that game gives it a 5/10. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Additionally, they seem to be using virtually any placement on a "best of listicle" to justify inclusion. Appearing as 50th place on a list of the top 50 list from Nintendo Life was enough, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
List of action role-playing video games feels a bit subjective doesn't it? How much action does it need? How much role-playing? Is Zelda an action rpg? and so on. I was kind of hoping the inclusion criteria would be a reference that actually calls it that but doing some spot checks, the references just provide the objective data. There was a lot of work put into it clearly, so I'm not that committed to kicking over someone else's sand castle but I would love for the ground rules to be clearer. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of the list works if the inclusion criteria are tightened up to "multiple reliable sources call the game an ARPG". After all, action role-playing game seems as definable as any other genre, so long as we don't have to do WP:OR to come to that conclusion.
Side note: the current verbiage that This page should contain any games listed as either Action RPGs or Soulslikes. This page does not currently include Looter shooters, as these games are generally viewed more as Shooters than RPGs is problematic (unnecessary editorializing of soulslikes and looter shooters, our classifications should be based on outside sources). ~ A412 talk! 18:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this is also a content fork in the same way as the "among the best" lists- this is just a bunch of rows filtered out from List of role-playing video games: 2020 to 2021 et al., with the subgenre column taken off. --PresN 18:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that inclusion criteria could be made better. As the person that made the page, i just went off what was done on the List of tactical role-playing video games pages. To me, if there's a page for Tactical RPGs, there should be one for Action RPGs, especially with the popularity of soulslike games.
The Looter Shooter distinction is only there because I personally haven't played these games, and do not feel comfortable calling them Action RPGs. If someone else with more knowledge in this area wishes to change that, i have no issues including it 13akoors (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think if a game is notable enough for inclusion then it shouldn't be too difficult in general to find a review that says "this is an action rpg" or the like. Though with this many games that's still a massive undertaking, I know.
Still looking through the other lists, it looks like they don't have any citations at all so this is still a big step up. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm currently working through all the lists right now to add references. Though I'm a bit stuck on pre-2012 games, since there are 0 or near 0 references on any any pages. So I fear I'll end up delving into the massive pit of sourcing woes very soon 13akoors (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The constant struggle, I see the same thing in my early 80s world. So many horrible GameFAQs stubs someone created in like 2007 that no one has gone back to patch up even though we are overflowing with sources nowadays. I would probably give the title a quick pass through the programmable search engine or VGHF's document search, most prominent games you'll come up with something. Sometimes Moby Games has reviews listed to, though sometimes they're from like random bloggers so you have to watch out. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it can be a real one-and-done citation for a genre, but it grows complicated when we have multiple sources material several genres and as genre is subjective, you cannot really say one is "wrong" (which we shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia anyways on something that is basically an opinion.) What I try to do is to find a source that goes more into detail about why something may fit a genre (i.e: blankety-blank the game has all the traits of a tactical-RPG with the game-mechanic1, 2 and 3 fully present" or whatever.) I feel whoever goes more into detail on why or how something fits a genre applies WP:WEIGHT better than 7 citations next to genre. I also tend to lean towards more contemporary reviews in terms of genre as it will be more applicable to a contemporary reader than someone calling Megamania an "invaders-type game" or a "space game" as these are kind of antiquated terms that won't mean much to a contemporary reader. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an added note too, I try to make sure someone has played a game. Its easy to look at a trailer or use a press release to comment on a genre, but this is not a great way to actually observe game mechanics which should help clarify what is or is not a genre. I'm not sure if everyone will agree, but usually makes finding someone who's experienced a work instead of going by "well i've seen a clip of it". Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 13 May 2026

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 13 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB ratings

[edit]

An article's claim that a game received an AO rating from the ESRB has been called into question. The publisher's website displays the AO rating, but the game does not have a listing on the ESRB website. This raises two questions:

  • What is the likelihood of a game which was rated by the ESRB not being listed on their website? I thought that absolutely everything they rated went up there.
  • Is it reasonable to doubt the publisher's own claim of an AO rating? I can't think of any meaningful benefit to putting an AO rating on a listing for a game that didn't receive one, and doing so opens the publisher up to a potential lawsuit from the ESRB.

Martin IIIa (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't ESRB typically WP:GAMECRUFT? If a game's esrb isn't mentioned by independant reliable sources then it almost certainly shouldn't be in the article. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is generally correct. I can't tell what game we're talking about, so I can't weight in on if this is a likely exception or not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the article in question is List of AO-rated video games, so unless the article as a whole is to be deleted, ESRB ratings are significant in this context. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't verify it to a secondary source, I would be safe and leave it out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this particular case, the (supposed) AO rating itself makes it rare and nontrivial. But in particular, which game? MilkyDefer 14:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eden* Plus+Mosaic. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Visual Novel Database, it looks like +Mosaic was a patch file that added adult scenes, but the base game did not include them. Is it possible the developer just listed the patch as AO, but the game itself isn't? 13akoors (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know how eroges on Steam work: publishers obtain licenses from their original developers to localize and sell on Steam to reach a worldwide audience. In order to pass the Steam review they have to cut out the hentai parts. In the early days the cut content can be seperately released as a Steam game DLC attached to the original game. Later this becomes impossible, and the publishers offer restoration patches off-Steam (usually on their official websites). More recently the base game without hentai content becomes hard to get approval from Steam so the publishers begin to set up their own storefronts. Without compliance with Steam's policies they can offer the whole game without the split of content, which I guess is the case of this particular MangaGamer's Eden* version. Financial censorship is another topic that I would not wish to elaborate here. MilkyDefer 17:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yes, ESRB, PEGI, etc. are generally not things we discuss just because the rating is there. However, there are notable cases where the rating has been the subject of discussion (GTA IV and Hot Coffee, Balatro, etc.) and that's fine to discuss those with sources.
I would also agree ratings that either by law or practice strictly limit the game's distribution (AO for ESRB, several Aussia categories) are appropriate for a list, as long as its discussed why that rating triggers blocks on sale. Masem (t) 02:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Cite video game § Citing multiple consecutive lines of dialogue

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite video game § Citing multiple consecutive lines of dialogue. Specifically, this is in relation to that template's use of {{cite book}} and the quote parameter in particular. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fate/Grand Order characters (2nd nomination)

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fate/Grand Order characters (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 18 to May 24)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.22 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

May 19

May 20

May 21

May 22

May 23

May 24

--PresN 12:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually recreated Atriarch (like I did many other pages) Timur9008 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ asked the article history to be restored. Timur9008 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I've never seen a "recreated" tag like that. Ok, easy fix to the script, and swapped in your name. --PresN 12:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was mentioned here [4] Timur9008 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Computer Golf!, Showdown in 2100 A.D., and Baseball! should be listed. ~2026-31045-38 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found the bug that removed them and added them to the list, thanks! (Computer Golf! would have been May 16)--PresN 17:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

[edit]
Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive:

Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.
  • Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.

Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom Sales

[edit]

Capcom's official list of platinum sales, last updated 31 March 2026 [5], lists 17 million sales for Resident Evil 5 (calculated between the three different versions) and 18.3 million sales for Resident Evil 2 (in third position on the page). This Capcom PDF financial report [6], apparently released in May 2026, has recently been added to the RE5 article. On page 7, it states Resident Evil 2 has 1,832 lifetime unit sales, and clarifies this is measured in 10 thousand units. It states Resident Evil 5 has 1,901 lifetime unit sales. This has been used to update the article to 19.01 million sales for Resident Evil 5: [7].

I originally came here asking which sources was right, but now I see at least one RS source has also reported this: [8]. So my question now is, does anyone know how this discrepancy exists? I.e. Where did Capcom pull literally 2 millions more sales of a 17-year-old game from in one month? Does the list of platinum sales, for example, not calculate certain sales? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane just my personal take on this but from what I can figure out is that the discrepancy on the “Platinum Sales” list on their investor site is that, while it’s useful information, it has historically been separated out by SKU and only records those SKUs that sold more than 1m units, which meant RE5 (which has been released and re-released across a silly number of platforms as various SKUs) is split across many different listings and some of those didn’t sell over a million units so aren’t listed.
So it’s not that they magicked 2m units out of thin air, it’s that the more recent May document looks to properly compare “like for like” all sales of each title regardless of platform, SKU etc in a way RE5 (and probably others) wasn’t before. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Kingdom Hearts X#Rename to the previous title

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kingdom Hearts X#Rename to the previous title that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources for Fate/Extra CCC?

[edit]

Right now it is a redirect. I don't see anything on MobyGames or Metacritic. Ja wiki has ja:Fate/EXTRA CCC with quite a few refs, but no reception section. If we can find enough sources to estabilish notability, I'll try to write something up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera has written a couple of (short) articles, which you've probably already seen: [9] [10] [11] (among others).
Apparently, there's also coverage of CCC in TYPE-MOON Ace vol. 8, including interviews. I don't have a copy of the magazine to verify, though, and it's primary sourcing.
The closest I've seen to reception is this page. Make of it what you will... Beyond the sources in ja:Fate/EXTRA CCC, I haven't seen much else covering CCC. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Famitsu's cross-review of it is available on their site: https://www.famitsu.com/game/title/24587/reviews --AlexandraIDV 08:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember reading about it back in the day after enjoying the first Fate/Extra, but I only really remember the short Siliconera blurb-type stuff Alexandra already linked above. The PSP was pretty much wrapping up by this point, and particularly in English-language regions.
The only additional source I found was that Rice Digital review, which is apparently situational as long as they're not reporting on things they have ties to, which I don't think they do to this game. Not a real strong review though either.
That said, it seems like there's been an increase in interest/article creations with Fate stuff lately, so maybe one of those editors will provide something better Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! From what I know, the game was only available in Japanese, so if there are sources, they will be Japanese. Famitsu is a RS, I think. Do we have any Japanese speakers who could do a search for sources in Japanese? (These days I guess I can also ask AI, but they still inferior to people experts, who can find stuff in IA or such...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it got an unofficial fan translation, but it happened so far after the fact (2023) that I think this Time Extension article is really the only RS that reported on it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need help tracking down a newspaper source

[edit]

So among other things, I've been working on a series of articles on the Master Strategy series. These are three video game/board game hybrids released for the Odyssey 2, first one was Quest for the Rings. The website The Odyssey² Homepage (which is a great resource but unfortunately WP:RSSELF) has a newspaper article posted that I'd love to cite here. Problem is the websites maintainer doesn't actually know where the original article came from, best they've got is that it was an Illinois newspaper dated to November 26, 1981 (with some skepticism. The site tends to be pretty bad on dates). Newspaper archives kinda terrify me so I was wondering if anyone could give me a hand tracking down the original. Whipmywillows (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything on Newspapers.com. (the exact text) There is this though. [12] Timur9008 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny they can't seem to tell the difference between the Odyssey 1 and the Odyssey 2. There's some useful stuff in there though. Thanks! Whipmywillows (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Highland Park News, 19 November 1981, p. 112B. [13]. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're a magician. Thank you so much. I'll have to try and get this back to the website's maintainer at some point once the project is a little more complete. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doomguy and B.J. as mass murderers

[edit]

See Doomguy's and B.J. Blazkowicz's articles, which are filed under Category:Fictional mass murderers. The question here is whether the Doom and Wolfenstein franchises, based on the article text and sources, clearly establish the characters—however gratuitous their deadly actions may be—as mass murderers (or terrorists for that matter). For me, it's not clear that they do, but I am interested in seeing other users pointing to these guys' darker side (especially the reboots, with which I am admittedly far less familiar). Otherwise, I will just go remove the categories for lack of verification. Big Blue Gnu 22:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people just add categories to articles without reasoning or because the subject ever so narrowly fits a category, even though it isn't a defining trait. Putting aside the fact that neither article verifies the mass murderer part exactly, and just looking at it from strictly a franchise perspective: Doomguy specifically kills demons for the betterment of humanity, and demons are not people. B.J. Blazkowicz is somewhat more reasonable under the logic that the characters he kills are living people (or robots) and I think he is considered a terrorist in Wolfenstein lore, but if he's a "mass murderer" then so is practically any character in a military or first-person shooter game. In comparison, a first-person shooter character I would actually call a "mass murderer" for the purposes of the category, if he had an article, would be Vladimir Makarov from Call of Duty. λ NegativeMP1 22:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mario is a mass murderer for killing all those goombas and stomping all those turts. Have we considered this. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was unironically part of my comment originally but I removed it because I thought it'd make the comment seem less serious LMAO. λ NegativeMP1 23:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now that you said it, I can see myself having done something similar in my early years on this site: applying categories that may be the slightest bit relevant, but are neither verified by sources nor defining qualities of the subject. I would expect this sort of editing especially on articles relating to popular culture, along with trivia in general. It reminds me of when I once thought that every video game article needed at least one screenshot, and that was before I understood the meaning of "the free encyclopedia".
As for B.J. being considered a terrorist by the reboots, fair enough. The takeaway is that, for as long as I can remember the mass murderer category appearing at the bottom of these two pages, that characterization always seemed contentious. The least that can be done is to check whether the games—the primary sources—agree with such descriptions, which they do not seem to do here. I will go remove that category from both articles. Big Blue Gnu 00:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just be bold and remove it if you disagree. Lots of people add frivolous categories. You can remove just about anything if it fails WP:DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UFO 50 list

[edit]

Hi everyone,

The quirky game that UFO 50 is, it consists of 50 games. Some small, some large. And as such, the article has become too unwieldy. I've never had an issue with removing unsourced material, but I can't tell what's worth keeping and what should go. Or just a List of games in UFO 50? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it feels like the best thing to do would be to make a list table with !game, !director, and a short paragraph explaining the gameplay of each entry. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a bunch of trivia that can be removed under "recurring themes", that alone should shorten it significantly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every uncited section and see what people are actually writing about. We don't need our original research here, that's what fanwikis are for. If it turns out we are able to write a cited paragraph or two about every individual game, we can create a separate list for it when we get close to that. For now it's just easy cleanup. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an interesting situation. We wouldn't write about each individual mini-game in a Mario Party game, but at the same time, unlike MP, there doesn't seem to be much of a core experience tying it all together to focus on either. And unlike most video game compilations, you can't just link to respective games contained in the collection either, because, well, they largely don't exist.
I guess it comes down to sourcing. If you have the (third party reliable) sources to describe every game, go for it. If not, then just choose a few example games that can be sourced and frame it as examples rather than a comprehensive summary of everything. (This approach, while more encyclopedic if that's all sourcing can do, will probably require infinite maintenance from newbies though, who will find it compulsory to add everything I'm sure.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We always have to push back against users trying to insert more trivial information, such as listing minor characters or level structures. It's also not unlike any anthology or short story collection, and as a project we do have a lot of experience writing about those. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'm not saying it should dictate what we do, I'm just saying be prepared for constant pushback. Not listing out every game would probably be seen as counter-intuitive to anyone not moderately experienced in Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it shouldn't be an issue to find third-party sources, as I've seen plenty of ranking lists that verify facts about every entry of UFO 50. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hadn't heard of it until recently, but it appears that its gotten a lot of attention, so I believe its possible. Probably worth attempting at least. I don't think its worth splitting into its own article though. Considering how much of the article is about listing out the games, I don't think there would be enough left to sustain a general article. (Also, that "recurring themes" section probably needs heavy cutting/reworking too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 25 to May 31)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

May 26

May 27

May 28

May 29

May 30

May 31

Changlog:

  • Fixed a bug where page "recreations" (article history restored for a deleted article) were not being treated the same as page "un-redirections"
  • Fixed a bug where page un-redirections/recreations were being ignored if the page was then moved (similar issue to the create + move problem from a couple weeks ago)

--PresN 16:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was very, very proud of myself for making Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 and Hatsune Miku - The Planet of Wonder and Fragments of Wishes back to back. Two completely different tones lol. λ NegativeMP1 20:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1357284102"