Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 19 December 2014

Video games 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Lisette Titre-Montgomery (1 participant) Party royale game (2 participants) List of Minecraft characters (5 participants) Carlton Wilborn (5 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) TheoTown (12 participants; relisted) Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (nom) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) End Poem (nom) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (start) Frostpunk (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Articles that need... assessment (3) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (250) screenshots (8,991) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elite Dangerous article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Frontier: First Encounters

User:HyperspaceCloud says that "I really think it's important that FFE is mentioned in the header especially when there is no proper Elite series article". The name of the immediate prequel does not seem more important than the MMO nature of the game, the Kickstarter context or the fact that the player flies a spaceship. That the game is the latest instalment in the Elite franchise is significant, but namechecking the third game in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE seems an unnecessary amount of detail.

There's a thread further up the page, from April, suggesting that a separate article be created for the Elite series. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that until the Elite series article is created, it should be made very clear in the header somewhere which game specifically it's succeeding. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the same disagreement as you had at Talk:Elite_(video_game)#Lead_paragraph, isn't it? You think the Encounters sequel is sadly underrated and would like to see it mentioned very, very prominently, and here would like it to be in the opening sentence. Consensus over at Elite was that going into detail about sequel titles in the lede was inappropriate - it's the same deal at the other end of the franchise. The best possible way to explain Elite: Dangerous in one sentence does not include seven words explaining what the immediate prequel was called. --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being underrated, it's to ensure that it's instantly clear to people where Elite: Dangerous comes from. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence as long as it's in the header, especially because there is no elite series article yet. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite series article

Speaking of which, I see you did start a draft of an Elite series article here, HyperspaceCloud. If we all pitch in, we could finish it and move it to article space, which would render this whole argument moot. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did start that as a test. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I've done all the damage I can to this draft. Does someone want to look it over and decide if it can moved to the Article space? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Have given it a bit of a polish; I think it needs at least one-paragraph sections about each of the games, a bit about the game universe and how consistent (or not) it's been, and maybe a source that talks about the "series" being a significant entity by itself. Another series article like Grand Theft Auto (series) might be a useful model. (And it looks like Elite (series) would be a more appropriate title than Elite series.) Maybe Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games could give some input? --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, McGeddon. It reads better now. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the series, having played none of the games. Someone else will have to flesh out the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of the Video Games WikiProject, McGeddon, so thanks for the suggestion. I brought it up there. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus (here) seems to be that:

• The series does need an article
• It doesn't have to be perfect before going live, BUT
• It needs to establish it's notability before being moved to article space

Anyone want to take a crack at establishing its notability? Then we can move it to the general article space and millions of people worldwide can admire our beautiful work. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Complex and controversial"

I cut back a lot of unreadable "as scientifically accurate as possible in a spaceship" over-referencing in the lede, but if it's "complex and controversial" that the fourth game in a series is the sequel to the third, is this sentence trying to say something more meaningful, and failing? --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not certain wether or not the single player mode will be a sequel to the third game. I remember hearing something about that somewhere. I think it's safe to say that it's a spiritual sequel? Escapevelocity (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I see why. Braben had decided to release First Encounters as a seperate game rather than an extension of Frontier, thus denying the guy who held the royaties any payment for the "extension"/"sequel." It's in the Further Reading section, the interview with Ian Bell, Q8.Escapevelocity (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous is a proper sequel to Frontier: First Encounters. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Elite: Dangerous isn't a proper sequel to Frontier. But that interview with Ian Bell that I read made it clear that there's disagreement as to whether or not First Encounters is a separate game rather than an extension on Frontier. And... why are we having this discussion? Why is this critical to the integrity of the article again? Escapevelocity (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I see you mention spiritual sequel, which is incorrect. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Chasing big dinosaurs around"

We seem to have gone from Braben chatting about "chasing big dinosaurs around" as an experience that he would enjoy as a player, to something that updates to the game "will allow". Has this been announced, or are we misrepresenting sources? (A lot of the current sourcing is unclear - one simple fact about the number of star systems had 11 reference footnotes at the end of its sentence, many of them YouTube videos, when it only needed one.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost all sources has Braben obsessively talking about big-game hunting, and there is an example of big-game hunting dinosaur-like creatures in Elite lore as well. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And you've applied the personal WP:SYNTHESIS of "Braben loves the idea" plus "there was a canonical short story about it in the 1990s" to get "will 100% definitely be implemented in an update to the game"? Please stop doing this. Just say exactly what the sources say, and don't try to infer any outcomes or conclusions from them, however likely they may seem to you: presenting personal conclusions as facts misleads the reader, and I'm sure Frontier Developments wouldn't appreciate Misplaced Pages announcing future updates which are not actually planned at all. --McGeddon (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

People might have rearranged my sources. Braben mentioned big-game hunting wildlife multiple times, and implementing a dinosaur is the same as any other wildlife and makes no difference, if it bothers you, quote it yourself before flagging, also vehicles driving around the surfaces is a confirmed feature in multiple sources, so I suggest you first check all the sources and familiarize yourself on the subject before touching it. (as I told you multiple times before) HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Elite: Dangerous Stage Demo - E3 2014" video has Braben saying that "what I want" is big game hunting, and "IGN Live: Gamescom 2014" mentions the developers currently "looking at" the idea. I can't see anything else in the sources. We shouldn't describe the developer's hopes and intentions as something that "updates to the game will allow", and "big game" plus "gun-for-dinosaur story in canon" plus "dinosaurs must be as easy to render as anything else I think" does not equal "Elite: Dangerous confirmed to feature dinosaur hunting". --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are more than these 2 sources. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The other three sources are text articles, and none of them appear to confirm that future updates will allow big game dinosaur hunting. Have I missed something? --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another big-game hunting source http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/07/16/elite-oculus-rift/ Braben talks about it all the time HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a new reference with Braben explicitly saying that "big game hunting will come", that's better than anything we've got in the article so far. I've added it to the paragraph and put the dinosaur quote into context. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to just quote what was said in the E3 talk, instead of expressing enthusiasm for the idea, because it now looks as if it wasn't his idea in the first place, which is misleading. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a direct quote is usually best. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed external links are excluded until such time as there is an active consensus to include them, often via WP:ELN. In this particular case it is fairly clear that the Wikia link under dispute does not meet the guidance of WP:ELNO, with less than 100 total editors ever. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere do those links state that a wiki has to have 100 total editors, also this game isn't super popular, so of course it doesn't have 100 editors any time soon, also we already discussed this link months ago and it was fine then, while it had significantly less editors than it has now. Some of the editors and admins are veteran Elite community members and official Elite lore writers. The founder is from the Elite: Dangerous podcast http://laveradio.com/ which hosts the official yearly Elite conference, Lavecon (endorsed and promoted by Frontier Developments), where the official Elite developers, writers and fans gather together. The wikia has also been mentioned by Frontier themselves https://twitter.com/EliteDangerous/status/436080033757925376 HyperspaceCloud (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The links do say that wikis are excluded unless they have a substantial number of editors - 65 for all time is not considered a substantial number, regardless of the popularity of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You need a clear definition of substantial, because 65 is very substantial to me, considering the game hasn't been released yet. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on what has and has not been accepted at the relevant noticeboard, 65 would not come close to qualifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is *under guidance* of WP:ELNO, not an iron clad rule. Rules can have exceptions, can't they? It seems it is very solid case to have one, especially when quality of source matters - and that page is vetted at much higher level than huge amount of Misplaced Pages articles.Pecisk (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm only seeing 37 editors, only 18 of whom have been active in the last month. WP:ELNO requires both "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors": a stable wiki with a small number of editors is effectively just a fansite. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many anonymous edits too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Massively Multiplayer

Per this video description , I would not consider this game "Massively Multiplayer" but "Multiplayer". Each game instance is limited to a maximum of 32 players. Each Player vs. Player game is limited to 16 players per side. There are may game instances within one persistent world. This is quite different than most MMO type games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimir (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Instance size has no bearing on MMOness as most MMOs are instanced. Also an instance in Elite: Dangerous is not static and not a fixed location in space. It's a dynamic bubble around the player based on sensor range. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's a multiplayer game by all accounts and definitions. Instance size has an immediate bearing on "MMOness" and 32 players per instance is a classic multiplayer number.82.149.182.235 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation rework

Is there a requirement on wikipedia somewhere that states how exactly to cite the date that an article was created and/or retrieved? I'm noticing that many are using DD Month YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD. Escapevelocity (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this as well, but don't videos, such as those from Youtube posted by IGN, have their own citation format? For example, "event occurs at blahblahblah or "this is what he said insert speech here?" Escapevelocity (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into these citations, we're going to have to do some clean up of the links. And get dates onto stuff...Escapevelocity (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed some forum posts being used as citations, we can use citations from forums if it's said by staff, yes?Escapevelocity (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Forum posts by staff fall under WP:SELFPUB, and can be used so long as the material isn't "unduly self-serving", makes no claims about third parties and we're sure it was really made by a significant staff member. We should be careful about how we interpret and present this, though - earlier versions of this article had a lot of "Illudium Pu-37 space modulators confirmed, say devs!" sourced to a polite and generic Kickstarter response of "uh, sure, we wouldn't rule that out" to a backer's question. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't need 7 citations for a single fact, maybe two or three.Escapevelocity (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: User:HyperspaceCloud was at one point adding a lot of reference articles and let's-play videos on the basis that these references themselves were interesting or "important", rather than because we needed them to source any particular statement. I'd cleaned out some of this overreferencing in September, but we can still stand to lose a lot. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanked you for recent ref cleaning edit. Good work.Escapevelocity (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud is now shuffling references around and dropping a secondary source in favour of a primary newsletter because it's "more appropriate" and there's "no reason to bring the offline refund stuff into the MMO sources".

The geek.com reference uses the phrase "massively multiplayer gameplay in a persistent universe" and confirms that single player is online only, so can neatly be used as a single source to verify all three facts. We do not need a reference soup of "important" links to source these three basic facts. Article references are not a carefully curated magazine of further reading, they are simply links to confirm that the article is backed up by reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong, I now see it mentions massively multiplayer, but it's not complete as it does not state where the offline mode request actually came from, it's also unnecessary to have a title like "Elite: Dangerous drops offline mode, angry backers demand refunds" for every part of the article that mentions MMO or singleplayer. That's a separate issue that should be confined to the development section. That source also talks about a 5000 pound refund by a certain backer, but it has since been retracted. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The geek.com source was being used for the sentence "Elite: Dangerous features a massively multiplayer, persistent universe, with an online-only single player mode" and MMO/single-player fields in the infobox. Nothing else. That's all it needs to cover, and it covers it. If you want to replace it with another single, secondary source that covers the same three basic facts, then by all means do that, but replacing it with three separate primary sources (the ED web page, their newsletter, and a Braben video interview) is of clear detriment of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The geek.com source is also out of date and incomplete with respect to the refund issue, which overshadows the whole article. I added two primary sources and one secondary source. I thought the interview counts as secondary. You could have removed one, because I added one extra for redundancy. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are considered primary sources. You can swap the geek.com article out for a different secondary source for whatever personal aesthetic reasons you like, so long as that source does the same job, but don't get too hung up on this erroneous idea that references are a curated magazine that the reader is going to print out and read in full, and which should be as up to date and interesting as possible. One reference headline in a small font in a dry reference section near the foot of the page is hardly "overshadow the whole article". --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Single player offline mode / refunds

User:HyperspaceCloud has twice added the primary-sourced newsletter observations that we should be "considering that offline support was not one of the original aims of the project" and that it is "not out of the question" that single-player offline mode will be added in the future. Both of these would appear to cross the line of "unduly self-serving" per WP:SELFPUB, by giving Frontier's own spin on their announcement, and the entirely empty statement that a feature hasn't been 100% ruled out forever.

The same user has blanked all mention of alpha and beta testers not being eligible for refunds, claiming that "the refund policy has changed" - is this "Elite: Dangerous refunds now being judged case-by-case" (which would still belong in the article), or has it changed again since Monday? --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I request that User: HyperspaceCloud give a citation for the "backer-requested" single-player mode being promised on the Kickstarter FAQ. Let us learn from the case of "dinosaur hunting." Escapevelocity (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With no response and two concerned editors, I've reverted the edit. I've brought the alpha/beta refund policy up to date from the above source. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@User: HyperspaceCloud How does canceled make it sound as if the whole game had been canceled? I don't care if you use scrapped or canceled, but you don't always have to have the last word. It's not even possible to have the last word on a responsible and current wiki. Escapevelocity (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a little too casual in tone, and I don't see the "whole game" problem. But the given source's chosen verb is "removed", and this seems better than either as it makes it clear that the feature existed and was taken out, rather than being considered but abandoned before being developed. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the whole thing about removal of the 'offline mode' should be separated out into a self contained 'Controversy' section for clarity, and because of the growing hubbub over the whole thing now that the game has actually launched.User:Splodger999

• Start-Class video game articles
• Low-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles