Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 12 January 2016

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Video games B‑class Mid‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Nebulae (video game) (0 participants) Star Wars Republic Commando (series) (0 participants) Clare Siobhan (0 participants) Super Penguins (4 participants) Double Fine Comics (1 participant) WiiLink (3 participants) Westballz (1 participant) Temmie Chang (8 participants) Greg Martin (artist) (5 participants) List of Pokémon volumes (3 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (4 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) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Good article nominations River Raid (start) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Regi (Pokémon) (nom) 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) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Shiny Pokémon (start) Cry of Fear (start) Moida Mansion (start) Aperture Desk Job (nom) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (4) infoboxes (6) cover art (247) screenshots (9,009) photos (71) translation from japan (187) creation merging

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://www.famitsu.com/news/201512/28096390.html

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 555 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain

I think that it should be mentioned that there is a missing mission- No.51 "Kingdom Of The Flies" in MGS:TPP which should've been the real ending of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.168.231 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Kojima confirmed via twitter, that Ground Zeroes is a speparate game from MGS 5: The Phantom Pain ( Kojima Twitter ). Should we consider in separating out the two, and move Ground Zeroes content to it's own article? Deelite310 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Twitter isn't really a realiable source. It should only be used as a supplementary source.

Secondly, I see no confirmation that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are, in fact, separate games. This is what Kojima has said:

"Ground Zeroes" is a prologue of "MGSV". 9 years after that event will be "The Phantom Pain". MGSV is constructed w/ prologue and main game "TPP".

So, if I'm reading this right, Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain will form Metal Gear Solid V together. Think back to Sons of Liberty, and the way it was structured, with the "tanker chapter" and the "plant chapter". The tanker chapter served as the prologue, and the plant chapter was the main body of the game. It is my understanding that Ground Zeroes will be Metal Gear Solid V's equivalent of the tanker chapter, and that The Phantom Pain will be the equivalent of the plant chapter. They are two parts of the one game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/27/the-phantom-pain-and-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-are-two-separate-games/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.94.112 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

They are separate games. Aside from Kojima's twitter post, we also have it from the words of Konami director of public relations Jay Boor. See here: http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/27/the-phantom-pain-and-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-are-two-separate-games/#6eJtQjLEJ9DWuyBo.99/ I'd revert it myself, but the edits make that impossible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say that's questionable. It doesn't really clarify anything. Until such time as they make an official announcement that the games will be released separately, I think everything should stay together. After all, it has already been established that they have their own self-contained storyline between the two. At thhe very least, there should be a consensus before we make any changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it questionable? Boor explicitly stated that they were two separate games, Boor is also a high ranking member of Konami, and so is official word. What more do you need? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Boor's comments are contradictory. On the one hand, he refers to them as being two separate games. On the other, he calls GZ a prologue, and TPP as the main game, and many secondary sources have drawn parallels to the tanker and plant chapters of SOL. Furthermore, are these two games going to be released separately, like Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue? Or will GZ be sold separately as a prologue, and then shipped again with TPP? Are the two stories completely independent of one another, or do they have their own esoteric storyline that means GZ has to be played in order to understand TPP?

So, what more do I need? Let's start with answers to those questions before we start considering the separation of the article into two individual pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Kojima's comment about it being "one game" is contradictory as well. He claimed that GZ was a prologue to TPP, yet TPP's beginning was a tutorial, which doesn't make any sense since by that point, people would have gotten the basics down anyway from the prologue. Besides, just because he claimed that they were together "MGSV" doesn't mean that they are one game. Don't forget, Peace Walker and Rising were at one point called by Kojima to be consecutively MGS5, yet it was pretty obvious that they were two separate games. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well lets wait for a confirmation they are two different games. The game could start with Big Boss recovering from his coma and then remembering Ground Zeroes.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Except we had a gameplay demo on Ground Zeroes, so I doubt that would be it. Prologues generally don't occur until before the main story. Anyways, CrunchyRoll and Joystiq confirmed that they are two separate games, and the latter mentioned that Konami itself stated it via update, so that makes three sources claiming this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So Metal Gear Solid V is like the .hack series? I wonder if there is enough weight to split them without making stubs.Tintor2 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Konami confirmed via their Metal Gear Solid Facebook page that they will be two separate games ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151327888170986&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=1&relevant_count=1 ) The page is age protected (your age on Facebook must be set to over 17) to access the photo. I would say that this is similar to Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 - two chapters, but over two games. Deelite310 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and they quoted Kojima's twitter as well. It's a darn shame that Facebook and Twitter, even those that act as official outlets of information for games, aren't counted as sources on Misplaced Pages, since we definitely would have sourced this. Still, that makes at least five sources stating that they should be split apart. I think the official Facebook page was run by Shinji Hirano, if an image from Facebook is anything to go by. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Shinji Hirano was the President of Konami (US), so I doubt that he ran anything on Facebook. Like many other companies, Konami has a dedicated Social Media team, and they are the ones that maintain and post information to the Konami and it's brands, Facebook Pages/Accounts. In the end, the Siliconera article seems to be legit enough. Its 2nd source (not direct) confirming what Konami has stated through several of their sources. Deelite310 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, thought he ran the MGS Facebook page due to this post released before Peace Walker's release: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=400768045985&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=3&theater Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. A man who barely speaks English, running a Facebook page? ^_^ That's why companies hire people to do that type of work for them. Konami runs about 30 facebook pages, and this is man that has to run a business, and go to meetings nearly every hour of the day. Anyway, we are getting off-topic. Deelite310 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd, it worked for me. Well, in either case, might as well quote the post: "IT’S OFFICIAL—METAL GEAR SOLID: PEACE WALKER HITS THE STREETS! And our President himself, Mr. Shinji Hirano, helps launch it in properly-rugged snake style! Thank you for your incredible support, Solid Snakes. Now let the Legend of Naked Snake begin! http://www.konami.com/mgspeacewalkerpost — with AdrIanoo AcosTaa, Erick Abraham, boooo and Edison Parada." Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are not familiar with launch press releases, and launch events. That post was made by the Social Team, not Mr. Hirano himself, and he was speaking to the launch of the game, not maitaining a Facebook page. Again, off topic. Deelite310 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

.....So are we going to split the two or not? There's enough evidence to support splitting them. Having them combined has caused several problems with the page, the most obvious of which being the gameplay section, which is referring to quotes about Ground Zeroes as being indicative of Phantom Pain. Suzuku (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't split them - all it's going to do is create two stub articles, and the existence of each is going to depend so much on the presence of the other that they might as well be merged. And despite the way various sources claim they are two entirely spearate games, or that one is an extension of the other, and so on, all of them agree that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain make up Metal Gear Solid V together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I just split them now. At this angle it doesn't seem like either are stubs now, does it? -MGSV editor (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of God!

I'm all for being bold, but almost every edit I have seen from you has made the page worse, and this is the crowning glory of it all. All we have managed to do to date is establish that Kojima and Konami are treating these as two seaprate but inherently-interlinked games, and if you watch the interview with Kojima in the GameTrailers interview, you will see that hey don't even know how the games are going to be released.

You need a consensus before making these changes. Please get one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear the consensus is to split, you're the only one arguing against it. Beyond that, you just ruined the page again yourself. We finally got some order to it and you reverted back to that horrible mess. Having these two combined creates several problems for the page, the first of which being the Gameplay section, where you have comments on Ground Zeroes' gameplay as referring to and being indicative of the Phantom Pain, which just isn't the case. The only thing we know about the Phantom Pain's gameplay is that it is an open world game. Everything else was made as a comment on Ground Zeroes. Furthermore, they are clearly two seperate games that make up an overarching story. It was explicitely stated by Boor that they were two separate games, they were announced separately, and we have far more evidence and reasoning supporting that they are two separate games rather than one and as such there is not enough evidence to support the the two articles being combined.

Speaking of which, you talk of a consensus on the pages being split, but there was no discussion on whether the pages should be combined in the first place, they just were. As such, to be completely neutral, the articles should be kept in their original state, which was split, until a consensus is actually reached on whether to combine the two or not. Suzuku (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It was confirmed by multiple sources, Kojima himself, that the two games are separate. There's no reason not to revert the articles into their split forms.SOCOM Warrior (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay then if someone doesn't come up with a better argument for not splitting the pages I'm doing it in an hour. Suzuku (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there's any valid excuse not to restore the articles. If you're splitting, I support it. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Snake or Big Boss

I've noticed that this article is not written consistently when referring to Snake/Big Boss. Sometimes he's referred to by one name, but elsewhere the other name is used. The article needs to refer to him by one OR the other (with a note to explain the presence of a second name).

Personally, I think the name Snake should be used. Even though he has earned the title of Big Boss and accepted it, he is still referred to as Snake throughout the game, as evidenced by the gameplay footage. This is the same logic that is used in the PO, PW and GZ articles, and all three of those games are set after Snake becomes Big Boss. Hence I think the trend should continue here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this on the Ground Zeroes' article's talk page. Most agree that Snake is the correct name since that is how he is referred to in game.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think about it, they are both the same, the men call him Big Boss while Miller, Ocelot, and Huey call him Snake. (With the occasional "Big Boss" Benners88 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Release Date Edit War Plz Stop

I'm not trying to start or engage in one here. I keep Daily tabs on this game for 2 years now and when I find a good lead i fix it. And theres some old links here that can't be used anymore that im trying to take out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulZMarsh (talk • contribs) 07:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't own this article nor do you have the right to subvert WP:SPECULATION policy. Speculative sources are unverifiable and prohibited on Misplaced Pages.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Konami has stripped Kojima's name from this game.

This is awkward.

So, should we still credit it to Kojima Productions, then, or have Konami listed as developer too? It seems as if they may have been assimilated into Konami somehow... ViperSnake151  Talk  16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Coverart

The coverart is not accurate, Hideo Kojima is not credited on the cover. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Cut ending

Recently it was revealed that the game is missing its ending. The Episode, Episode 51, is seemingly missing according to various articles. There are incomplete bits and pieces in the Collectors Edition Disc of it. Should it be mentioned? DarkKyoushu (talk) 13:10, 09 September 2015 (GMT)

It is part of the game so I am with you in this. Benners88 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion below. --Soetermans. T / C 07:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted ending

I've just removed the deleted ending subsection from the plot. I'm talking about this:

In a third, final secret mission, released in unfinished form on the collector's edition versions of the game as a video, Eli, since confirmed to be a clone of Big Boss- a prepubescent Liquid Snake, is seen to have occupied an island with Sahelanthropus and released the last English strain parasites. Since it does not work on children, he has effectually created an isolated society with no adults. As Big Boss, wearing a gas mask, comes to return the children to the base, eradicate the parasites and take back Sahelanthropus, Cipher agents arrive, wanting Sahelanthropus for themselves. They are quickly annihilated by Eli piloting the mecha. In the end he is only subdued by the collective forces of the Diamond Dogs which the player has amassed throughout the game. After realizing Eli has entered puberty since and become infected by the parasite after all, Big Boss abandons him, ordering them to napalm the island on his departure. However, The Third Child appears and removes the parasite from within Eli, guiding him to safety. Eli vows to surpass his father as he departs with The Third Child, unaware that he has just been bested by a double.

The reason is simple: it's a final secret mission, released in unfinished form on the collector's edition versions of the game as a video. It is part of the collector's edition, as what apparently is a work-in-progress. For whatever reason, the developers decided not to include it into the game. Not just the regular editions of the game, it isn't featured in the game at all, because it is a video and not a mission. The same could be said how BioShock Infinite changed during its development. Or that, originally, Dead Cell had different members. A game like Far Cry 4 does have different, hidden endings, which are present in the game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that this is still canon and part of the story. Its events are acknowledged in the timeline that appears after the credits, and it fills in some important holes in the story. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be canon and part of the story, but apparently it isn't part of the game. In the end, the article is about the game The Phantom Pain, not about the enormous and often confusing storyline of Metal Gear. Besides, we can't go explaining what has changed over the years either. --Soetermans. T / C 18:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Still, it's being covered and discussed by reliable sources (, , , , , ), so it's worth covering on the page in some capacity. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it can be worked into the development section, that it was changed during its development. --Soetermans. T / C 08:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's really no different to Quantum of Solace. The film ends with James Bond confronting the man who betrayed Vesper Lynd. After making his peace with it, he walks away, and the film ends. However, an epilogue was filmed that saw Bond confront two villains, White and Haines. It was ultimately cut from the final film, and is not mentioned in the Quantum of Solace. I see no reason why this case is any different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But this ending IS mentioned in Phantom Pain. Even if the mission itself was not finished, the game treats it as part of its narrative. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How is the ending mentioned? Besides the collector's edition video, does this part of the story appear in the game in some way? Because if it does, why mention at all that it is a secret mission in an unfinished state, that can be seen as a video that's only available to see on the collector's edition? --Soetermans. T / C 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The mission itself is only in the Collector's Edition video, but during the ending timeline that appears like in all the other MGS games, the very first section (1984, the year this game takes place) states "Eli establishes his Kingdom of the Flies in Africa." These are the events depicted in the Collector's Edition video, thereby firmly establishing them as being part of the Metal Gear timeline and the game's narrative. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If it only appears in a video in one edition and is separate from the main game, then we cannot establish its canonicity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So despite the fact that the video is part of a version of the game, its events are alluded to in the game itself, it features word-for-word what is described in said allusion, and even according to multiple reliable sources fills important holes in the game's narrative, we're still going to leave it out. I strongly disagree, but my opinion obviously isn't worth much around here, so whatever. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're going to leave it out, because it's not considered canonical. Not unless Kojima says otherwise. How do you know that it wasn't cut because of a planned DLC release, or a Metal Gear Solid 6? Mere allusion is not enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if it part of the story, it isn't part of the core game, plot-wise. I don't see a problem with mentioning it in the development section, but we can't treat it as plot. --Soetermans. T / C 08:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New consensus on infobox fields

This mostly concerns @Wrath X: and @Dissident93:: guys, you both have to stop editing and discussing through edit summaries over tiny bits and try to come to an angreement.

The other day I started a new discussion at WT:VG to get some new input on the infobox. I agree, the syntax guide wasn't clear before. I don't know if the syntax guide has been updated yet, but it's clear that new consensus has been reached: no more than three entries per any field.

Also Wrath X, in your edit summary you point to WP:NOTBROKEN, but you realise that Shuyo Murata isn't mentioned at all at the article on Kojima Productions? I wouldn't call that a decent redirect at all, because the reader wouldn't find any information whatsoever about the linkable name Shuyo Murata. --Soetermans. T / C 09:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make that rule, if you have a problem with it then discuss it with the administrators or whoever made these rules. As stated in WP:NOTBROKEN, one reason to not fix redirects is "Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see Redirect with possibilities)". Murata doesn't have his own article but if the link is used enough times it may encourage editors to make an article. Many links without articles work like this. Moreover, the link redirecting to Kojima Productions at least tells the reader that Murata's notability is connected to Kojima Productions. One more thing, the game has four writers: Kojima, Murata, Inamura and Tamari. It wouldn't be fair to list the first three but leave out Tamari as all four writers are credited equally. If maybe one of these writers are credited as lead writer then sure add him and omit the rest; BioShock Infinite also has four writers, which exceeds the infobox limit, but one of them is credited as lead writer, thus the lead is listed and the rest are omitted. This is not the case in The Phantom Pain; there is no lead writer among these four. Thus, all four are omitted per template. I understand that Kojima is pretty famous and he's the creator of the franchise. But the game credits him equally with the other three writers, thus all four writers should be treated equally. Besides, Kojima is primarily notable for being the designer and director of the Metal Gear series, and he is already listed as those in the infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You realise that we make the rules, right? The top of WP:R reads "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", so we as editors can still decided if we should deviate from that guideline. Shuyo Murata redirects to Kojima Productions because of a AfD discussion; the page in a nutshell bit of WP:R reads: "Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles". The page reached is Kojima Productions, Shuyo Murata is now an alternative title to Kojima Productions, which doesn't make sense. We can also look up how many links there still are to Shuyo Murata. Not a lot, and they pretty much all involve either Metal Gear or other Kojima titles. The reader can already come to the conclusion that Murata is connected to Kojima in some way, as he is mentioned in the infobox of a Kojima video game in the first place. It would be the same thing to make Kazunobu Uehara link to Kojima Productions.

Concerning writers, the syntax guide says:

writer

The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.

1. If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer";
2. If there is a person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", also list that person here;
3. List no more than three people in this field.

It doesn't say anything that we should drop the field in its entirety if there are four writers. I, on the the other hand, don't think it harms the infbox if there are four writers listed. --Soetermans. T / C 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't say to drop the field entirely, but at the same time it's not right to omit a writer from the group since the entire group are credited equally. Either all four are listed or all four are omitted. If the infobox sticks to the template's "List no more than three people in this field", then the four writers should be omitted rather than listed.

Also it's funny that you say you don't think it harms the infobox if there are four writers listed. On September 9, I added all four writers in the infobox, even noting "These are the four lead writers; either all four are listed or all are omitted". Then the next day you reverted my edit citing Template:Infobox video game. Now our positions have somewhat reversed.

As for the redirect, you make good points. But you can't guarantee that they won't make an article about Murata again in the future. Moreover, the reader can indeed come to the conclusion that Murata is connected to Kojima Productions in some way, it's obviously in the infobox, but the redirect link to Kojima Productions indicates that he is notable mainly for Kojima Productions. Honestly, if the redirect page is useless then it should be deleted entirely.

-- Wrath X (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I suppose you're right we've changed opinions somewhat. So much for coming to a consensus! Anyway, I'm afraid I don't agree with your (if I may call it that) "all or nothing" stance. Since Misplaced Pages's guidelines isn't set in stone (and neither is the VG infobox syntax guide), I don't think having four writers listed is an issue. I'll try to incorporate some of Murata into the Kojima Productions article later. --Soetermans. T / C 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I'm trying to say is if you're going to list the writers then don't list one, two or three but list all four writers as they are credited equally. The alternative would be no writers listed at all, hence all or none. Of course, four writers conflicts with the template, hence why I ultimately went with none listed instead of four listed. Problem is if we make exceptions for this game others will make exceptions for other games, rendering the template somewhat inconsequential as a guide. -- Wrath X (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's suppose to be used as a general guideline for 90% of articles. What the template is really trying to prevent is adding 9 writers, 10 artists, all 12 composers, etc. Having four is something only you have a problem with, as other GA/FA ranked articles have had that without any controversy for years. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I've request multiple times that Wrath X help the discussion regarding the new infobox guidelines, but he hasn't for some reason. None of these edits would be controversial if VG project members would agree to a new, updated standard. Even Wrath X said it's only a problem because he's just going off the current infobox doc, and not the new, but not official currently, guidelines that people have no problem with. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Quiet

@86.40.31.62:, please note that removing sourced content because you don't agree with it is your opinion. Polygon is considered a reliable source, that's why it is included here. Per WP:BRD, please discuss any further ideas before editing again. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my post below 86.40.31.62 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay putting this up to avoid a stupid edit war, made it clear in my edit summaries. This article is not the place to detail the reception of a character. The section in question regards Quiet's controversy before the game was released. Post game there has not been significant outcry about the character in reviews or otherwise. One opinion article is not a consensus. The game has received numerous reviews and accolades at this point and they do not highlight that Quiet was a major issue for them. General fan response has been positive towards Quiet in community websites. The paragraph I removed is not neutral either, there was nothing about the positive response the character has received or an otherwise more balanced view. Finally, discussion of the character is not relevant to this page. It should go under the character's section in the 'List of Metal Gear' characters page, the character's page or else it is simply not noteworthy. The section is about the controversy before the game was launched. If there is further controversy after launch then there needs to be significantly more evidence to show that a substantial number of people found her depiction a problem. One lone article does not suffice. Naming the writer of said article and talking about the article is also irrelevant. This is not a page for individual opinions to represent themselves, the topic is the reception of Quiet's depiction by the community and press overall and no other views have been represented.

Kojima was criticised for the sexualised depiction of Paz in GZ. Kojima is then criticised for the sexualised depiction of Quiet in TPP, and you don't think that's relevant, especially considering that TPP is a direct sequel to GZ, and that Kojima attempted to address this issue with the Paz scenes in TPP? It's called context; if a composer has faced similar criticisms for similar creative choices within a broader body of work, it is highly relevant.

You claim that the paragraph about the depiction of Quiet is inherently biased because it presents no alternative point of view. However, that is an argument built on a fallacy because I can find no alternative opinion from a reliable source. The lack of an alternative opinion does not invalidate the existing opinion, and so I can only surmise that while you say you want to restore balance to the section, you simply want to remove criticism of Kojima. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that you can't find an alternative opinion, but here; http://techraptor.net/content/the-strength-of-interpretation-an-alternate-look-at-quiet-metal-gear-solid-v An absence of an alternative opinion is not an excuse for bias. Misplaced Pages isn't for representing any one opinion, and sorry but regardless of how valid Polygon is as a reviewer, a review is still just an opinion.

I would argue though this isn't a page to discuss Quiet's reception as a character to begin with. Why should we focus on the reception of just one character to begin with? The reviews discuss many other characters too. Failing that I have to ask, is this an encyclopedic entry or an opinion piece? A single opinion should not be highlighted to speak for everyone, period. Regardless of availability of opinions. Likewise this isn't about Kojima, it's specifically about MGSV and any controversy that has surrounded that. Controversy surrounding Kojima's depiction of anything belongs on Kojima's page. So I hope I've explained myself on that.

To reiterate, an encyclopedic entry on a video game should not highlight a single person's opinion on a topic, nor focus on personal criticism leveled at any one individual who worked on it. Criticism regarding Kojima's depiction of anything should go under Kojima's page. Since it is about Kojima specifically. Yes of course it has relevance to MGS5 but it is about Kojima's work as a whole, not specifically MGSV.

Logically you will have to put it on the page of every game he makes from here onwards if the topic is ever brought up again. Why not rather just locate it to Hideo Kojima's page that's y'know, specifically about Kojima.

At this point it would be within reason to add Hayter's removal from MGS under the controversy section, and have probably five paragraphs of opinions from the press on that too. It's simply not relevant to the actual finished game though. It's just a dispute between individuals that has been reported on. Yes they're linked to the game, but just because that has context to the game doesn't make it relevant to the actual game product itself.

I was able to look up the techrapter article in 5 seconds, so unless we can present a neutral view I don't think we should have any personal opinions regarding Quiet on the actual game page. A neutral point of view should be presented on the character's page or under her own section on the 'list of characters page'. Feel free to explain to me now that I've provided a source why we should be biased and only present one view.

Once again though, reception of characters should go under reception. The controversy regarding Quiet's depiction already has it's own section and has been documented. Reception of the character is a completely different topic in my mind and belongs under the 'Reception' section with a balanced neutral view, or under the character's page or equivalent. At the least reception of Quiet as a character should not have it's own paragraph under a controversy section, it should be under the reception section. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First, TechRaptor fails WP:RS.

Secondly, criticism of the character amounts to criticism of the game. The controversy it generated is notable enough to justify its own section. Especially when it relates to the wider issue of the representation of women in video games.

You like to sling around terms like "bias", but I suggest that you read NPOV. Removing the section removes the neutrality, because like I said, it's pretty obvious that you're trying to remove criticism of Kojima and/or the game (and what you can't remove, you're trying to marginalise). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

>First, TechRaptor fails WP:RS

Firstly, explain specifically how it fails please.

Secondly. you're just moving the goal posts now. I never said criticism of the character doesn't amount to criticism of the game. I'm just saying it has to be in the right section and have a neutral non-biased view.

The controversy has it's own section, I'm not asking that we remove that. I'm asking that reception and reviews of the character go into the correct section and be presented from a neutral standpoint.

So feel free to address my points instead of dodging them and just accusing me of some ulterior motive. Cheers 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that just because someone has a negative opinion, that doesn't make it biased by default. There is no rule that says all criticisms must be balanced out by compliments; if there was, editors of pages for Michael Bay films would have a constant headache.

The character has been controversial both during development and following the launch. The controversy has centred on the same issue: the representation of women in video games. Therefore, including it in the controversy section is very appropriate. However, moving the post-launch controversy to the reception section implies that the controversy ended with the game's release, which is not true.

As for TechRaptor, look at the list of publications that we included for the reviews. These are the mainstream gaming media. Do you see TechRaptor there? No. It is a fringe publication, outside the mainstream media. Its existence and its counter-opinion do not make it reliable by default. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone removed my previous talk post here. Don't do that please. The exact same paragraph is in the article twice. I'm removing it on the grounds that the page does not need to repeat itself twice. That's absolute lunacy to think people should read the same opinion twice in one page. That's just simply bad writing.

You cannot have a full discussion on Quiet as a character on the game page. The main game page is not there for a dissection of any character.

The Quiet controversy section is not supposed to be a section to dissect the character. It should describe the controversy surrounding the character AND THAT IS IT. There is no need to put in 1 or 5 or 6 different opinions on the character from reviews. It's simply not the place for it. Reception of the character, whether controversial or not, GOES UNDER RECEPTION. Please address this point before adding it into any other section.

As for Techraptor, so what if it's fringe and they're not included in mainstream reviews? It's still a valid opinion and a valid source. Please point me to the rule that says any source MUST be from the mainstream gaming media reviews. That's utterly ridiculous. You're actually telling me that mainstream media's opinion is more valid than other people's opinion? I'm not asking to put it under reception, you asked for a source of opinion on Quiet's character and that is a valid source, but I don't believe it needs to be there in the first place. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are again going against consensus, @86.40.31.62:. I've issued you another warning for your attitude. Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral stance on its articles. In this case, if you can't find something to counter that criticism, does not mean you can decide it should go. You are censoring Misplaced Pages, and like @Prisonermonkeys: said, just looks like you're hell-bent on removing this one piece of criticism on a game. How can we describe the controversy around a character, without going into detail? Further more, it actually would be nice to have 5 or 6 different opinions on Quiet, maybe the character can have its own article. Removing the paragraph again, just because one sentence mentions the criticsm again in the reception section is not "absolute lunacy". For Misplaced Pages's general guidelines, see WP:MOS. For the guidelines on video game articles, see WP:VG/MOS. For reliable sources, see WP:VG/RS. --Soetermans. T / C 13:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@86.40.31.62:, I just noticed you've reverted again. I've given you a final warning. You're still going against consensus. Please stop trying to own this article. You're more than welcome to edit constructively though. --Soetermans. T / C 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? There's two of you and you're both acting like you own the article. You're not addressing the points I'm making you're just reverting my edits. The criticism of Quiet post-launch belongs in the reception section. The controversy section is not there for individual opinions on the character. Otherwise I could add in every opinion from other mainstream sources that are on the page. We clearly disagree on this and you don't seem to want to address my points so I believe a community decision should be made or have it escalated further. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with 86.40... here. The plot reveals that Quiet is semi-clad because she breathes and nurtures herself through skin and that clothes would suffocate her. As such, writing that "Michael McWhertor described the overt sexualisation of Quiet as being gratuitous", etc is unhelpful. This is a subjective opinion which contributes negligible if any EV to the article and thus should be left out. Brandmeister 16:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@86.40 - I don't think you understand what a consensus ism it's certainly not "one person agrees with me, so my edits stay in place". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

They're a neutral party to the original dispute. That is part of building a consensus under Misplaced Pages guidelines. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been opened relating to this ongoing dispute. samtar 23:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister — an explanation in the plot does not automatically negate the criticism. Especially considering that Skull Face, Code Talker and the Skulls have similar properties, but none of them appear half-naked. And McWhertor's comments refer to the cut-scene at the start of Mission 45 which is very much a case of sexualised violence - and attempted rape that turns very bloody, very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As it is, McWhertor's opinion about Quiet is already provided in the reception section. His further words "gratuitous, distracting, unnecessary and poorly-executed" and "distasteful" are redundant, since they pertain to an area where people, not necessarily gamers, may have different opinions. Had McWhertor wrote, for instance, "graphics is poor" or "the gameplay is thrilling and realistic", that would have been the case where encyclopedic value is manifest. And given it's Metal Gear, it's not surprising that mature themes are raised. Brandmeister 23:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It still does not negate the issue. If anything, the section needs more references, not outright removal. You cannot argue "there's not enough sources, so this should be removed" when the section is reliably sourced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister:, that Quiet has to be semi-nude just to stay alive may be a reason in-universe, that doesn't take anything away from McWhertor's opinion. Opinions are subjective and can also be founded upon false information. Same goes for Mass Effect and inter-species erotica, we won't remove it just because somebody is wrong. We try to add more points of view to it. --Soetermans. T / C 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources relating to sexism

Besides the ones I recently added to the article, the following sources describe Quiet's portayal (or Kojima's portrayal of women) as sexist:

• http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/hideo-kojima-metal-gear-action-figure-squeezable-breasts
• http://www.gamesradar.com/quiet-embodies-metal-gears-complex-relationship-women/
• http://www.dailydot.com/geek/metal-gear-solid-quiet-costume-explanation/
• http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/11/8585029/metal-gear-solid-v-quiet-toy
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-hideo-kojima-questions-his-own-legend-metal-gear-solid-5-phantom-pain-1533300
• http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/09/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain-review-all-the.html
• http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/bewitched-by-the-witcher-3-less-impressed-by-metal-gear-s-squeezable-knockers-1294011

Peter 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

These sources are a lot better than the Forbes content farm bloggers with no editorial oversight which currently form much of Quiet's reception. - hahnchen 12:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Should blogs affiliated with Forbes be considered as unreliable as any other affiliated blog?

Peter 14:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_8#Forbes for analysis of Forbes' contributor network. The most recent Forbes fuckup is detailed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_117#PS4_and_the_terrorist_attacks_in_Paris. - hahnchen 13:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The latter is speculation about terrorism and current news. There's no question that it's an unreliable source. These are opinion pieces about video game content, though. Isn't that pretty "situational" (per the current recommendations that you added)?

Peter 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If the commentary is from Forbes staffers, it's reliable. If it's from the contributor network, it generally isn't. The contributors' opinions hold no more weight than any other self-published source such as Youtubers or Medium writers. - hahnchen 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"As unreliable as random YouTubers" is not what Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources says. Could you be clearer about what "situational" actually means here?

Peter 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There are Forbes staff - reliable, professional writers employed by Forbes, who have editorial oversight. There are Forbes contributors - unreliable, no editorial oversight, not on the payroll. It's a bit confusing because in everyday language, contributors would include staff, but the staff/contributor split is how Forbes defines them. Compare the bylines of (staff) and (contributor). Then remove the non-notable opinion from bloggers. hahnchen 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If I've understood this correctly, you're saying that staff articles are acceptable while contributor content isn't. If that's what "situational" is supposed to mean, I suggest writing just that in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources and putting Forbes under both "Situational" and "Unreliable".

Peter 15:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There are already active discussions on revamping how we handle/display the "situationality", but in short, Hahnchen is correct, the current consensus at the WikiProject is to stay away from those Forbes Contributors - they're not actual staff, they're more comparable to random bloggers, and there's been instances of their articles containing some pretty major errors. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexism in MGS5, relevant to an encyclopedic entry on the game?

Came back to this article to see if any progress had been made on cleaning it up. Good to see some progress has been made. I'm going to make a few points here and well.. hopefully people will be rationale and objective about it.

Misinformation. This article is rife with it. It's incredibly important for an encyclopedia to present accurate information. An encyclopedia should not be an opinion column, it should not overly represent any opinion since they are not based on fact, nor relevant to a topic. I'm going to start with the 'Sexualized Portrayal of Quiet' and sadly I'm going to have to tear it apart. Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points;

1 - No other character in any other Metal Gear title pages is given this amount of scrutiny. Quiet has been highlighted by the media as sexist, this is true. However this is not a reason for an encyclopedic entry to focus on a given character. The page is not a study of the media's (or anyone else's) reaction to Quiet as a character. There should be balance in the reception section, giving a whole section to Quiet versus no other characters is not balanced.

2 - Misinformation. "Michael McWhertor criticized Quiet's portrayal, pointing out that while the game explains that her nakedness derives from a photosynthetic skin condition, several other characters with the same condition — such as Code Talker in The Phantom Pain and The End in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater — appear fully clothed."

Regardless of the source of information, if it is incorrect information it should not be in the entry. Quiet is naked because her lungs were burnt to a crisp, the game specifically mentions this and other fans have mentioned it on the page I believe. Code Talker and The End have the same ability correct, but they did not get set on fire and thrown out of a building. I'm really baffled this is in here because McWhertor is not an authority on this whatsoever. Kojima and the game writers are. Source it correctly or remove the information I would have said.

3 - Opinion columns. This baffles me. Why are opinion pieces been taken as reception? They are not professional video game reviewers. By the media's own admission they are just someone writing their opinion about something, it's not objective. They wouldn't even claim to be unbiased as it's an opinion. You are introducing bias here by taking an opinion and presenting it for no reason other than to say "this person didn't like Quiet's portrayal". If tomorrow Donald Trump wrote an opinion piece on Quiet for a media outlet, is that relevant to an encyclopedic entry about something?

4 - Further irrelevant information. There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME??? The video game this entry is about. To start with PlayArtsKai is a completely separate company that we have no idea or information about how much Hideo Kojima was involved with. One would assume since they are completely different companies ENTIRELY that Konami simply licensed the intellectual property rights of Quiet to PlayArtsKai. It goes without saying but Twitter is not a valid source of information.

5 - Dates. Numerous sources are reactions to the character Quiet and precede the date of release. Thus they are not a reception of the game itself. Hence why are they in a section called "Reception" to start with.

5 - Forbes contributors and Anita Sarkeesian. We seem to have established that Forbes contributors are not valid sources so I expect this will be okay to remove.

Everything else seems to be sourced from valid sources who are professional video game reviewers. Although again I'd suggest that Quiet is getting an amazing amount of spotlight in the article for no other reason than controversy

To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Misplaced Pages standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual. 86.40.28.221 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1) There is one subsection on the controversy, the focus of this article is not about that. 2) McWhertor could be wrong, I don't know, but that's besides the point, what matters what the reviewer thinks. 3) Opinion pieces are reception. IGN praising The Phantom Pain is reception. Misplaced Pages is neutral, whatever sources used can say whatever. 4) It's a figure, based upon the character from the game. 5) Pre-release reception is pretty common. You know, when they've just shown a game and some people are excited about it? 6) It says quoted by Forbes, not from Forbes. So again you're removing sourced content without consensus. Let it go already. --Soetermans. T / C 13:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Irrelevant to the point I was making about focusing on characters. You're just deflecting the issue of balance. Why are no other characters given their own section? No controversy? Irrelevant. Controversy does not mean we upset the balance of the article. It just means we detail the controversy.

2) What matters is fact. This page isn't for representing opinions, and it's certainly not for misinformation. If a source has bad or inaccurate information, regardless of whether it's valid or not then it shouldn't be there. If your goal is to turn Misplaced Pages into the equivalent of the Daily Mail then yes all that matters is what the reviewer thinks.

3) Reception of the game? Wrong. Reception of Quiet the character sure. Then we come back to my original point which you'll just deflect of "why should the article focus on Quiet at all?". At best the article should mention the controversy in reception.

4) So what? It has nothing to do with the game itself. Reaction to the figure does not equate to reaction of the character. The article was mostly about the figures squishy boobs. COMPLETELY irrelevant to the character herself or the game. Picking at straws here.

5/6) Deflecting my point again. It's a Forbes CONTRIBUTOR or are you so illiterate you can't read the above section?

the current consensus at the WikiProject is to stay away from those Forbes Contributors - they're not actual staff, they're more comparable to random bloggers, and there's been instances of their articles containing some pretty major errors. - An Admin

It's almost like talking to a brick wall. By the way, nice to see some of the changes I suggested were implemented, glad people are coming to their senses at last. 86.42.118.106 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1) You said "However this is not a reason for an encyclopedic entry to focus on a given character". The article on the The Phantom Pain is not about one character. Controversy is the exact reason why there is a subsection. 2) "This page isn't for representing opinions"? Reception is about that. Read Misplaced Pages's guidelines. 3) Reliable sources reported on Quiet, so we should too. 4) Of course it does, it's a figurine based upon a character from the game. 5) "Deflecting my point again"? That's not a response. Are you reflecting my point? 6) I'm not illiterate. Just because we do not agree is not a reason to act like that. Again, Forbes cites someone else that is considered notable. Ending your quote with "an admin" is not convincing. --Soetermans. T / C 23:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of @Czar:, @Sergecross73:, @Prisonermonkeys: and @Hahnchen: to chime in, as I am apparently a brick wall? --Soetermans. T / C 23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• The section's missing the broad strokes as far as I can tell. Use a source that best provides an overview to the backlash and explain (1) what the backlash was, (2) who provided it, (3) what the major voices said. Need not be longer than a paragraph, or about half its current length, in terms of weight. The lengthy quotes can be greatly paraphrased and common sentiments can be stacked (use multiple refs on a common sentiment to make it stronger). I'd strike the Sarkeesian. Her opinion is generally useful on these matters but when her criticism matters in the context of an individual game (when there is so much other secondary source commentary already), it's best to rely on secondary sources to determine which voices were the most important. IP's right that we burn Forbes contributors with fire. (There are just better sources from more reliable outlets.) Good call on bringing in the cavalry instead of edit warring. WT:VG's always a good option too. czar 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, so I just sunk an hour and rewrote the section. I think it's—dare I say—solid.  czar 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Czar, thank you for weighing in, but please focus more on providing balanced opinion than just cutting down on prose length as you did here. Reducing the figurine hubbub to a single, matter-of-fact sentence makes it meaningless, your paraphrasing of Roberts was simply not accurate, and you removed all the content that commented on Kojima's role in this.

Peter 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The figurine's release after all the hubbub speaks for itself. It adds nothing to say that a Eurogamer editor didn't like it. I didn't just cut down on prose length—I rewrote the section to speak with distance about the points that mattered in the "controversy". Frankly, the old section's emphasis on Kojima was off-balance. What matters is what the critics thought was important, why they thought it, and what happened. My paragraph does that much more succinctly and with much less extraneous detail than the previous version, and I think it would be a mistake to revert. But it's not my fight. Best,  czar 02:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Editors who added the PoV/non-neutral word "sexualized" are very aware that this is a breach of basic principles and guidelines (Accusatory headings do not comply with NPOV). Don't let them get away with bogging you down with needless discussion on something where consensus has already been achieved. They know exactly what NPOV and UNDUE entail. They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents, obviously. This is why they created a seperate section in the first place, rather than presenting their "views" (or rather "yet another thing in a fictional medium that they decided/have been told to be oh-so-offended about") in appropiate sections.

RfC - Character reception before release

Does the criticism of the character 'Quiet' post-launch belong in the reception section? See this section for attempted resolution. samtar 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The character was controversial prior to its launch, and that controversy continued following the launch. All of it relates to the representation of women in video games, which is a notable issue right now. Especially when Kojima has previously faced criticism for the same thing. Moving it from controversy to criticism marginalises the issue, violating NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy has not continued following the launch. The mainstream gaming press has not highlighted the issue in their reviews of the game, and only one individual source has been posted to cite controversy. Issues regarding Quiet's depiction are subjective and opinion based. While representation of women in games is an issue, it should be discussed or elaborated on outside of specific game pages unless it is a core theme of the game or presented by the game. It has no factual bearing on the game itself as Quiet's depiction whether good or bad is down to subjective opinion. The controversy section is there to outline the broad reaction to Quiet as a character as an event that occurred, and no one is disputing that. However, it is not there to highlight individual opinions of any one person (or editor for that matter) or source material. The original paragraph only gave one reflection of Quiet as a character and as such cannot be a neutral point of view regarding Quiet's depiction. Likewise, the lines regarding Paz refer to another game entirely. I explained my edits but I have been accused of "attempting to remove criticism of Kojima" as an ulterior motive. The paragraph in question regards a Polygon article, and is almost entirely repeated again in the reception section of the page. I proposed it remain there but be removed from the controversy section as criticism of a character post-release belongs under reception of the game as a whole. This point was largely ignored as far as I can tell. The controversy section is not a talk page for Quiet as a character. The reception section is there to highlight important elements of the overall review. It's pretty clear frankly that an individual opinion on Quiet's depiction is being pushed on the article, despite there only being 2 paragraphs out of 20 describing the Polygon author's issue with Quiet. So is 2 paragraphs of one individual review continued controversy? I don't think so but evidently someone does. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not highlight individual opinions. It draws attention to specific instances within the game that were considered contriversial. I have since updated the section to be more specific in this regard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It highlights an individual opinion by specifically mentioning the author by name and his individual reaction to Quiet's depiction. No other reactions are presented so why is one review significant? It's also an incomplete explanation, her lungs are burnt inside and out in the opening of the game which is why she has to breath through her skin. Hence why no other characters need to wear less clothing as their lungs were not destroyed. There's probably no need to have this in as I'd argue at best it's discussing the main plot of the game, and at worst it's spoilers. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

An explanation within the plot does not negate the controversy. Especially considering that Skull Face sustained similar injuries and is likewise kept alive by parasites, but appears fully-clothed.

Also, you cannot remove content because you consider it to be a spoiler. See WP:SPOILERS as to why. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't add the explanation, you did. I didn't say it negated the controversy either. Skull Face's burns did not destroy his lungs, hence he does not need the parasites to sustain him through photosynthesis. He sustained those injuries when he was young and was working in a weapons factory. He then recovered in hospital, and afterwords began working for the CIA etc. He did not receive the parasites until he started working with Code Talker at which point he started wearing that mask to hide them. I'll leave it upto you if you want to add it in but I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with it. It's plot, it affects Quiet's depiction from a story perspective but like I said it's not a section for discussion or opinions of Quiet's depiction unless it's relevant to the controversy as a whole or as an event. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant. The source clearly states that Quiet is given a very different treatment compared to the male characters in the game. The fact that Kojima took the time to explain it does not negate the way Quiet is treated differently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

>It is relevant.

Why? It has no factual bearing on anything regarding the design of Quiet or her depiction or the controversy surrounding it. It is simply one person's opinion of how she is portrayed. That is all. It is not significant either because other female characters in the series as a whole have been given similar treatment. So this is not a significant case regarding the character's treatment or design.

>The source clearly states that Quiet is given a very different treatment compared to the male characters in the game.

Not disputing what the source says. It's just not relevant or new information. Her design has been unchanged since the controversy.

>The fact that Kojima took the time to explain it does not negate the way Quiet is treated differently.

Never said it does. You added the story explanation to the article which is inaccurate by the way as I mentioned. I have corrected it, other characters have working lungs. Quiet does not, hence she uses photosynthesis and breathes through her skin. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment There is already a section about the depiction of Quiet in the "Controversies" section and this is sufficient. Information about Quiet doesn't need to be plastered everywhere, as it gets redundant and removes focus from other areas. If anything, reviews of the game that emphasize Quiet's depiction should just be included in the "Controversies" section. If there wasn't a section already dedicated to Quiet, then I'd support including criticism in the reception section. However, this is not the case and the focus should stay on reception of the game, instead of re-hashing areas already addressed in other sections. I'm not watching this page, just offering a comment. Ping me if you think it's necessary that I respond.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a thought but why not make an article on Quiet and move a majority of the criticism in that page? GamerPro64 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Not disputing what the source says. It's just not relevant or new information. Her design has been unchanged since the controversy."

And that's the controversy: the way she is depicted in the game despite previous criticisms of Kojima's depictions of women. Arguing that it's not new is a non-argument because of previous criticisms; there was no change despite the criticism. And you can't argue that it's not relevant because it's part of an ongoing issue. Removing that content implies that the controversy stopped, which it did not. You have misrepresented the issue, and given your over-reliance on storytelling explaining the costume, it's pretty obvious that you're trying to remove criticism of the game from tge artucle.

You also need to familiarise yourself with the way a consensus is formed. You must not remove that content until such time as you have a consensus. Any subsequent reversions will be referred to 3RR. And given the number of reversions you have made on a subject with discretionary sanctions in place, you are almost certainly looking at a block. Your ONLY choice here is to follow protocol if you want any chance of retaining your editing privileges. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. If you'd like a response on this RFC, it would serve you well to provide some background (the most relevant sources, the suggested implementation, the main arguments for and against). I'd like to help, but not if it means reconstructing the RFC's rationale for myself. Please {{ping}} me if you do, as I'm unfollowing the page. – czar 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I can oblige that (though it may take a bit of time to extract the main sources from the article).

The controversy surrounds Quiet, the only major female character in the game. Her costume consists of a bikini, torn tights and utility belt. It was initially controversial because Kojima described her creation as "erotic", but later amended it, saying he meant "sexy" and wanted to encourage cosplay. Kojima had previously attracted criticism for his treatment of women in Ground Zeroes, where a character has a bomb inserted into her vagina (which is never actually seen), and audio recordings in the game that imply she was raped while being interrogated.

Within The Phantom Pain, Quiet's appearance is explained as being because she performs photosynthesis and breathes through her skin; wearing clothes would suffocate her. Most critics found this ridiculous. However, other characters, both within the game and the wider series, have the same ability.

Within the game itself, Quiet is also subject to a prolonged attack by a group of Soviet soldiers who attempt to gang-rape her and half-drown her into submission. She fights back and kills the lot of them.

The main argument for inclusion is centred on two points: one, that the criticism aimed at Quiet did not stop with the game's release, as almost every single critic took issue with it on some level; and two, Kojima was previously accused of including sexualised violence directed at women, and the attempted gang-rape scene continues this trend.

The arguments against inclusion claim that the game provides an explanation for Quiet's appearance, negating the controversy; that there is only a narrow range of sources provided, and an absence of alternative arguments that concentrate on the positives; and that the section only repeats the "reception" sub-section. People arguing for its removal have not addressed the gang rape scene.

Hope that helps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked through a number of the MGS5 Quiet results in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and here are my thoughts. (1) Remove the Controversy section. We try to avoid "controversy" sections as "controversies" themselves are not a major category of the game's coverage. Konami/Kojima should be covered in the Dev section, and the others should be trimmed down and included in the Reception section. If something has received so much coverage as to warrant more than a single paragraph, consider giving it a level three subheading. (2) The paragraph on Quiet's depiction should be limited to what critics have said in the context of Phantom Pain. If they bring a previous scene or backstory into their articles, mention it. There are certainly enough articles written specifically on Phantom Pain's depiction of Quiet to warrant at least a paragraph. (3) We take our cues from reliable sources—coverage in this article should be proportional in weight to its degree of coverage in the media. Any argument here should be about source proportionality/weight. I can suggest sources if asked. Hope this helps.  – czar 04:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I would suggest that it's an issue of due weight. The Quiet issue is certainly controversial as it relates to the ongoing social issue of the depiction of women in video games (I teach a unit of work called "Virtual Worlds" and we spend two weeks looking at the issue alone). By comparison, a doctor threatening to sue Kojima over the supposed use of his likeness is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Due weight to MGSV or just as an issue in general? The page is not here to communicate issues regarding the depiction of women in video games.

If every single critic took noteworthy issue then why is that not represented in the article? Only one individual source is mentioned so far. Majority of reviews gave the game high praise and only mentioned Quiet briefly. The VAST majority of the rest of their reviews go on to praise the game. The focus of the majority of the reviews has not been Quiet, and other characters have been mentioned as much as Quiet in some cases. The Polygon article referenced Quiet in 2 out of 20 paragraphs, I have not looked at others but there was not a substantial outcry regarding the depiction of the character. The part about Paz is also somewhat biased given that the character Chico was also raped. Sexual themes have been present throughout the series, Quiet has not been the first character to be raped in a Metal Gear game. I hope that addresses your point on the almost gang rape scene.

It seems to me so far the majority of parties have suggested either flat out removing the controversy section or as others have mentioned limiting it to the reception section or putting the information on the character's page (if it existed). Specifically myself, Brandmeister, CZAR and GamerPro64. Scoobydunk suggested that information about Quiet need not be plastered everywhere but supported the controversy section. Given that can we agree to limit specific criticism of Quiet as a character to the reception section but keep the pre-launch controversy section as a compromise? You could expand the reception section regarding the Polygon article to encompass what was mentioned in the controversy section if that helps. That way her depiction still gets the paragraph as it was in the controversy section, but is just simply moved to reception. Seems far more appropriate given that the source in question is actually a review and not a dissection of Quiet as a character. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"The VAST majority of the rest of their reviews go on to praise the game. "

That does not invalidate the points about Quiet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not seeing the point of contention. Propose a specific addition formatted with appropriate sourcing. It doesn't make sense to have a "pre-launch controversy section", especially if it concerns the prequel more than Phantom Pain. The controversy sections need to be dismantled and redistributed into the rest of the article. I don't think there will be any opposition to that. Once it's done, you can discuss any elements that need to be added/removed, and you can propose specific edits/steps here if there is disagreement. – czar 06:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — Given its connection to the wider issue, I don't think the section on Quiet could be dismantled so easily. The other three issues, sure; they could easily be distributed into other parts of the article (or even cut entirely). But at the very least, the section on Quiet should be re-organised as a sub-section. I just think that the issue is too big to warrant merging it into the rest of the article, and I think that doing so marginalises the issue of representations of women in video games. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Try merging it first (under the rationale to avoid dedicated Controversy sections) and anyone interested can correct if something is missing, as laid out above. – czar 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — you would agree, then, that there is something substantial enough to merit inclusion, then? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I said above that I saw several articles in a basic video game reliable sources custom Google search that covered Phantom Pain's depiction of Quiet in a non-cursory fashion. Yes, they should have proportional weight in the article—I didn't think anyone was arguing otherwise. – czar 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I only ask you because I want 86.40 to be crystal clear on the issue. He wanted to remove the section on the reception of Quiet entirely, and I felt that this implied that the controversy had ended prior to or with the game's release, which I feel in turn misrepresents the issue. Given his tendency to delete absolutely everything that he disagrees with and his edit-warring, I was left with the distinct impression that he was trying to remove criticism of the game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. 86.40 clearly said above that they're fine with the merge ("her depiction still gets the paragraph as it was in the controversy section, but is just simply moved to reception"). I'd strike the captious parts of your previous comment if it were my own, as I'd be primarily focused on the next steps. – czar 07:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys I have not wanted to remove the reception of Quiet entirely at any point and have not touched any wording regarding her depiction outside the controversy section. I have repeatedly stated that time and time again but you seem to believe I'm trying to censor the article despite my attempts to reach a compromise. Given the suggestions like I said, I propose we merge the paragraph regarding Quiet in the controversy section into the reception sections. If anything is missing from the reception section regarding Polygon's review, we can add it in. This gives Quiet's depiction as an issue due weight while leaving the controversy section to be dismantled as suggested seeing as mixed bag controversy sections should be avoided https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Controversy.22_section

Can we agree to this? 86.40.31.62 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Trim to one or two sentences. It should not be removed but that single author's opinion is absolutely not significant enough to devote 135 words to. (WP:UNDUE) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, especially when it's not clear how many reliable sources share the same view. Brandmeister 11:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, so it would seem the majority agree now that one reviewer's opinion should not be given more weight than others. So I think it's fair to say we've reached a consensus on that. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering (WP:UNDUE);

- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The Polygon review as stated before does not focus on Quiet, it mentions her for two of twenty paragraphs. Looking at other reviews which gave the game sweeping praise there is little to no significant outcry against the character. If there was then Quiet should probably have her own page. The reaction to Quiet post-launch therefore carries as much weight as a reviewers reaction to any other character.

Polygon is a reliable source and so elements of the review should be highlighted in reception like it's done for EVERY other game article. If Prisonermonkeys insists on highlighting Polygon's comments about Quiet in "Reception", so be it but that isn't really what was highlighted in Polygon's review which gave the game a 9/10 score.

The article at this point looks like a mess. I feel both myself and Prisonermonkeys should step away from it at this point and allow others to clean it up. It reads like an "off-topic" discussion after the Music section. The part about Quiet's abilities and why other characters wear clothes is incorrectly explained, her lungs were destroyed. Thus other character's attire is irrelevant because they can still use their lungs to breathe, unlike Quiet. Not that any of this needs to be discussed on the actual article. There is also far too much usage of commas in these paragraphs.

The article is about the game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, it is not a platform to highlight individual opinions, hearsay, or scandal from the media unless it is relevant to the game specifically. If those things affect the game (not the industry) in some way they are relevant, otherwise criticism and overall reception of elements of the game should go in the "Reception" section. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can justify removing the attempted rape scene as giving undue weight to a source, considering that the source specifically pointed to this scene as an example of that controversy and the previous criticism levelled at Kojima for the inclusion of sexualised violence.

This appears to be little more than an attempt to remove any criticism of the game. It happens a lot with gaming articles—dedicated fans try to get the criticisms removed and misrepresent the game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The article does not look like a mess. You can yell and scream all you want, you can't twist WP:UNDUE to have the criticism removed. Feel free to walk away though; I've seen a lot of experienced editors editing the article and so far nobody had the same idea as you. Even with other editors joining in, nobody so far said it should go in its entirety. --Soetermans. T / C 10:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to represent the opinions of editors—it is to document the events as accurately as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. WP:VNT czar 06:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

People have directly said the controversy section should be dismantled entirely and quoted Misplaced Pages sources to support that. I'm the one yelling and screaming am I? Seems to me I'm making varied points based on logic and reason while trying to reach a compromise or consensus, other people have somewhat supported that to varying degress. While you seem to just yell and cry that I'm trying to "remove criticism" with little to no engagement in the points either myself or other people have brought up. NUMEROUS other editors have suggested merging the controversy section or removing it altogether. Other's have made edits and supported that Quiet certainly doesn't deserve an entire paragraph explaining her appearance, yet these have been undone almost instantly and more has been added to the paragraph despite no consensus on that being reached.

Tell me this, if I'm trying to "just remove criticism" as some ulterior motive, why haven't I removed part of EGM's review, Game Informer's review, or the part regarding the controversy about the paywall Konami was going to implement? Why have I focused on one sole paragraph, containing one sole opinion, from one sole person, cherry picking two paragraphs from a 9/10 review of 20 paragraphs? Maybe.. just maybe, I see a problem with letting one person's opinion represent a consensus on a subject? Can you understand that?

Let's just call a spade a spade here, some clearly believe this page should discuss and highlight the subjective opinion (specifically Polygon's opinion) of one character's appearance in MGS5 because it is relevant to a social issue outside the game itself. Ask yourself, does that serve the purposes of Misplaced Pages or the purposes of a specific POV fork? Is this page in it's entirety an encyclopedic entry about MGSV or a platform to highlight an individual opinion? Consider that only one opinion has been represented and highlighted here regarding this issue above any others. When another opinion was highlighted it was dismissed.

Anyway, I think I've made all the points I can on this and cited a few Misplaced Pages sources to support them. Others have supported the idea to some degree too. I have also tried to reach a compromise regarding the issue.

Despite this, the two main arguments I seem to hear are "the controversy is still ongoing" or "the controversy is relevant".

There is one.. goddamn.. source in that section. ONE. In what twisted reality does that constitute ongoing controversy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a POV-section or criticism-section to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material.

Further to the above when presenting a controversy section;

For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources.

Quiet's depiction post release has not been what I'd call "broadly" covered in this case. Nor have various positions been represented or given due weight.

Once again, I'm not moving to remove anything. Nearly the exact same thing is already in the reception section.

Anyway I'm sure all of this will be roundly ignored like my previous points, good luck pushing your agenda onto other articles without any other viewpoints being represented. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What "agenda" do you think we have? And what's your "agenda"? Fact of the matter is, you removed the entire paragraph several times. , , , . Because of these actions, you've were warned several times, and there was a discussion at WP:AN. Opinions are subjective, controversies are subjective, the entire reception section is based upon subjective material. In the end, you're still more than welcome to come up with another source. --Soetermans. T / C 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The reception section is balanced though, sources are given appropriate weight. That's the glaring issue here that I've tried to get across and form a consensus on. Removing content to restore balance, especially considering I've explained my edits, falls well within Misplaced Pages's policy for content removal. If the paragraph in question was regarding one sole sources opinion on the 51st mission there would not be such debate, not that it would be in the article.

The reason this has been heavily debated is because some editors believe the page should contain selected opinions relating to female depiction issues that are irrelevant to MGSV as a game. MGSV has relevance to the issue of the depiction of women in video games, but it is not the case that the depiction of women in video games as an issue has relevance to the game itself. At this point, I don't know why you're trying to boil this down to simple vandalism or criticism removal. I've put forward a lot of reasons for why the paragraph does not give due weight to the issue to start with, and arguments as to why that the paragraph simply should not be there to start with considering unfocused controversy sections are essentially treated like trivia sections now. I'd speculate as to why but I'm not here to accuse people of anything, I'm here to be objective. Like I said, I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in Reception with the rest of the reviews. Putting it in it's own section gives it undue weight, as only one review (that I am aware of) makes these complaints about her. If it's so important, put it at the top of the Reception section, but giving it it's own section is borderline POV pushing.Skeletos (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, I guess someone already did that. So now we have TWO sections referencing a SINGLE PARAGRAPH from ONE review from ONE site. Get rid of one, I don't care which, but having both is unacceptable ans well as redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I've already pointed out, you removed the paragraph repeatedly, and you have been warned about your actions. You're not here to accuse people of anything? You've already accused us of having an "agenda" and you say "it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". How is that not an accusation? Either way, I haven't edited the article since September 26. --Soetermans. T / C 06:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Soetermans, I think you have me confused with someone else.Skeletos (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Skeletos:, I was talking about the IP user. --Soetermans. T / C 09:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing content is allowed if a good reason is given. Removing a paragraph is certainly allowed. You saying "you removed x" over and over again means utterly nothing. I gave reasons for it. Regards an agenda to this page that certain people are pushing what I meant was I'm not going to go accusing individual people of anything because it's off-topic honestly. Same deal with people owning the page by reverting edits with no reason given as to why. Any reason I've given has been seemingly brushed off. Despite almost now a page worth of voices, examples, other people agreeing there's some validity, etc.

I've looked into how other good pages have dealt with this, example; https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dishonored#Sexual_objectification_and_violence_not_mentioned, it certainly seems to me that unless there is a large impact it is not even worthy of a mention, especially if there is not widespread consensus on it.

At this point I've really failed to hear any other argument to keep it in other than "it's regarding female depiction in video games so it's relevant", relevant to whom and what exactly? MGSV? Hardly.86.40.31.62 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There was no "controversy." There was a single person who thought that the character was some how sexualized and demeaning to real women, a person who expressed mental difficulties. Don't forget that Misplaced Pages attempts to be encyclopedic, the mere opinions of one or a hand-full of people should not be given weight. Damotclese (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A person who expressed mental difficulties"? I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you questioning the mental health of the writer of the piece? --Soetermans. T / C 05:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned here by a bot - That piece of information seems relevant to that specific section of the page, nor does it seem important enough to create an entire new page for. I would add that it might not be a "controversy" per se, but I think its a sweeping generalization to say only a "single person" thought the character was over sexualized. I am sure any male or female could look at "Quiet" and say, "yea that's a bit much." Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment When approaching this subject, I think it's important to realize that some things in art are made to be controversial on purpose. I can't speak for Kojima, but the Metal Gear games are no stranger to controversy, and definitely approach topics that the public deems taboo, and seems to push more whenever the public pushes back.

I mean, Take a look at Manet's Olympia painting, when it was unveiled the depiction and context caused both awe and disgust, which the artist expected. Regardless (and perhaps because) of controversy, The painting went on to be celebrated as a masterpiece, much like MGSV. Of course, Quiet is just a part of the portrait, but a part of it nonetheless. Just my two cents. --BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternate solution/No Broadly agree with @Damotclese and 86.40 that these type of controversy sections can stray close to advocacy, especially wrt representation of women in games. Looking at the current article, there are only two accepted sources which contain or reference criticism of Quiet as sexualised which are McWhertor's Aug 27 review of MGSV and Kojima's 9 September response to criticism. McWhertor's review is 4 days prior to launch which I would consider post-development (part of the usual spate of pre-launch review copies being sent out) and the other is over a week post-launch. Unless anyone has other RS to add, I don't think either of these warrant the "Controversy" section to be located under "Development" and thus it should be moved wholesale to "Reception." This would cut down on some redundancy there and more accurately reflect the utilised sources.

Regarding the reception section itself, I think some biased wording exists in McWhertor's Polygon review vis the line "McWhertor was also highly critical of the overt sexualisation of Quiet" Reading the review McWhertor was neither "highly critical" (his only criticism of sexualised women was one paragraph of a 2000 word review) nor did he describe Quiet's sexualised depiction as "overt", I believe he was referring to any sexualisation of female characters in a general sense (the end of that paragraph briefly discusses sexualisation of other female characters). Separate to the above change of merging the "Controversy" section here, I propose the following line:

"McWhertor was also highly critical of the overt sexualisation of Quiet, feeling that it was unnecessary to the point of undermining the character and her role in the story."

be replaced with

"McWhertor was also critical of the sexualisation of Quiet and other female characters, feeling that it was unnecessary to the point of undermining the characters and their role in the story." Vynwood (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, cheers. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fulton Introduced in Portable Ops, not Peace Walker.

This article states that the fulton recovery system was introduced in 2010's Peace Walker. That is incorrect. It first appeared in 2006's Portable Ops. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.246.16 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand from googling "fulton recovery system portable ops", the Fulton recovery system allowed the player to escape any mission in Portable Ops online mode. While it made its first appearance in Portable Ops, it did have a different gameplay function. --Soetermans. T / C 10:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite Error

Is someone able to edit the "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Gamespot" defined multiple times with different content" error? I'm confused as to why it is there. Lacon432 (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Two ref names were both called "gamespot" so that's why. I added a "2" to the second occuring of "gamespot". --Soetermans. T / C 13:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks! Lacon432 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Venom Snake

Okay, we need to talk about spoilers. As I was playing the game, I came to this page to get information on Metal Gear Online, and as I hovered over the Venom Snake link I saw that it didn't list to Big Boss' article but rather "List of Metal Gear characters" and that was literally all I needed to come to the conclusion that Venom Snake wasn't Big Boss. You guys need to hide that better.. I took proper precautions to avoid spoilers but you don't expect to be spoiled by the summary of the game. Just some friendly advice from a concerned citizen. Mandon94 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic, @Mandon94:, thanks to your spoiler I know now already a huge plotdetail. Anyway, Misplaced Pages can't be spoiler-free. See WP:SPOILER for details. --Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It is ironic, although to be frank it's a given that you'll be more at risk for spoilers on the talk page of the game than the summary. Or so I would have thought before coming here. Oh well.. I guess we're both sort of victims of the mishandling of this page when it comes to spoilers. I get that wikipedia can't be spoiler free, but why should spoilers be found on the summary section of the game? I'm just saying, that's the one place in an article that should be safe. 24.67.141.49 (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The one place in an article? So the development section can have spoilers, in your opinion? A summary of the story can easily have spoilers of course, but feel free to edit in such a way that it still makes sense without that spoiler. --Soetermans. T / C 12:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexualized portrayal of Quiet?

Under the "Reception" section, someone added a section named "Sexualized portrayal of Quiet". Can that be considered necessary or even noteworthy? Also, I noticed that the same person made a section in the Dead or Alive 5 article titled "Sexest portrayal of characters" and there's an argument in the talk page going on about it. Yet, Bayonetta 2 has a similar criticism from some critics (mainly Polygon) about the game allegedly oversexualizing Bayonetta, and yet there is no section on that in that article. So is having a section on it here and DOA5 considered necessary and/or noteworthy? Gameman18 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources used and cited are considered reliable (see WP:VG/RS), so having the information there makes sense. Do you think it's given too much importance?

I think a separate, standalone section is an incredible amount of overkill for a single character (not even the main character), especially given that this is her only appearance in the entire series. If people want to bring up the controversy, then fine, but surely any amount of controversy over a secondary character would be better fit for the Reviews section, especially given that the controversy is ALSO already brought up there. Bringing it up twice in two different sections is overkill in and of itself.

The reason why it is mentioned at all is because reliable sources reported on it. Just because it is a secondary character with one appearance is not of importance of mentioning it or not. --Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't adjust content based on their importance to a fictional universe. "Just because reliable sources reported on it" is the primary reason to include anything related to reception. It's an aspect of the game that is related to something other than gameplay as such and most of the sources are not reviews. It's also not the first time Kojima has been criticized for the same thing.

Peter 08:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think criticism of Kojima sexualizing characters should go under the main Metal gear Solid page, as there are many examples in all of the games. Calling out Quiet specifically in MGSV is a bit weird, especially considering there is Paz in the game and an argument could be made that Snake himself is sexualized. I think this should go under reviews, not in its own section. Fangrim (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Misc. review

Drive-by review:

1. The two non-free posters are overkill. I don't see how they're supported by the WP:NFCC. A screenshot would make sense in their stead.
2. The reviews template is overloaded. It should have far fewer reviews listed and max out maybe at 10. The reviews from the less prestigious sources, or the ones that provide less variety, should just be scrapped.

 czar 02:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages under discretionary sanctions
• B-Class video game articles
• Mid-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles