| Revision as of 01:12, 1 May 2020 editRreagan007 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,728 edits →The Leak← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:43, 1 May 2020 edit undo46.97.170.78 (talk) →The controversy: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ::::::I wouldn't call it that, we'd need sources that call it the "most significant leak in video game history". Where have you seen that? There's nothing more to emphasize on. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 45px black">]<small><sup>]</sup></small></span> 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC) | ::::::I wouldn't call it that, we'd need sources that call it the "most significant leak in video game history". Where have you seen that? There's nothing more to emphasize on. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 45px black">]<small><sup>]</sup></small></span> 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::It's my opinion, and I wasn't suggesting we put that exact verbiage into the article. But can you think of a more significant video game leak than this one? ] (]) 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC) | :::::::It's my opinion, and I wasn't suggesting we put that exact verbiage into the article. But can you think of a more significant video game leak than this one? ] (]) 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == The controversy == | |||
| Be vary. There seems to be an increasing on-line backlash against Naughty Dog, concerning leaks about abusive working conditions and toxic corporate environment. It appears that right wing circles are trying to hijack it to make it looks like the real controversy is about specific plot leaks. Reactionary influencers previously associated with GamerGate seem hyper-focused on pushing the narrative that the game is pro-feminist, pro-LGBTQ, anti-Christian and anti-male, and that the growing controversy is a backlash to these elements as opposed to details concerning production, and the company itself. Be prepared for possible vandalism by right wing sockpuppet accounts. ] (]) 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:43, 1 May 2020
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Last of Us Part II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "The Last of Us Part II" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Add co-writer request
Main writer Neil Druckmann said in his Twitter that the story for Part II would be co-written with Halley Gross, who has written for Westworld and Banshee. Here's the source below:
https://twitter.com/Neil_Druckmann/status/805600975729766400
109.159.96.188 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Controversy Section?
At some point, a video game that displays any type violence could receive some amount backlash/drama against it. The latest drama around LOU 2 was the trailer released at the PlayStation conference at the 2017 Paris Game Week event for the game. The trailer recieved backlash for no warning of the violence that was going to be shown in the trailer. There are multiple articles talking about this topic. I beleive this section should be created just in case of anymore drama around the game arises.Cjbeckford (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- We try to avoid controversy sections, especially when there's not really any controversy to begin with, and there's certainly no reason to make one "just in case of anymore drama" per WP:CRYSTAL. I've added some information regarding the trailer and the response to an existing section. – Rhain ☔ 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
References
- Statt, Nick (September 26, 2019). "The Last of Us Part II will make you question Ellie's descent into violent darkness". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on October 14, 2019. Retrieved April 2, 2020.
- "Last of Us Part 2 Trailer". Youtube. Retrieved 8 November 2017.
- Harp, Justin. "The Last of Us Part II's grotesque teaser faces backlash for depiction of violence against women". Digital Spy. Hearst Magazines UK. Retrieved 8 November 2017.
List of special edition stuff
It's WP:NOTCATALOG or WP:GAMECRUFT and not appropriate. It shouldn't be in GA articles either. Popcornduff (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Popcornduff: Which one does it fall under? I cannot seem to find anything under those WP:NOTCATALOG or WP:GAMECRUFT which states it is not appropriate. Spy-cicle💥 12:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's an arbitrary list of stuff, as per the examples in WP:GAMECRUFT. The exact contents of different special editions is trivial - just marketing guff. Perhaps worthy of briefly summarising in prose, but not worthy of a table. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Popcornduff: WP:GAMECRUFT states no: Non-notable articles and spinouts, Numerous short articles, Detailed instructions, Strategy guides and walkthroughs, Excessive fictional details, Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing, Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, Cost, Rumors and speculation, Exhaustive version histories, Cast lists, Unofficial translations, System requirements, Succession boxes, Non-notable soundtracks, Age ratings. The different versions of Part II does not fall under any of this. Spy-cicle💥 14:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I know. But the policy clearly cannot state every possible permutation of trivial data editors might want to include; those are just common examples. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- The different editions of Part II provides a wider context to the release and sale of the game. It is not merely trivial data. It should also be noted that WP:GAMECRUFT is merely a guideline which should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception and not a strict policy. Spy-cicle💥 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it allows exceptions, but there are already two editors (myself included) who oppose this. Since others have previously opposed this as well (see my comment below), you'd need consensus for it to go back here instead. ~ Dissident93 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm 99% sure we discussed this a year or two ago on WT:VG and came to a consensus to not include this sort of sales crap in articles. I found an older one and a recent one that references the one I'm talking about that also agree to not include them too. So unless I'm remembering this wrong, it should be added to the MOS. ~ Dissident93 00:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- The different editions of Part II provides a wider context to the release and sale of the game. It is not merely trivial data. It should also be noted that WP:GAMECRUFT is merely a guideline which should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception and not a strict policy. Spy-cicle💥 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I know. But the policy clearly cannot state every possible permutation of trivial data editors might want to include; those are just common examples. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Popcornduff: WP:GAMECRUFT states no: Non-notable articles and spinouts, Numerous short articles, Detailed instructions, Strategy guides and walkthroughs, Excessive fictional details, Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing, Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, Cost, Rumors and speculation, Exhaustive version histories, Cast lists, Unofficial translations, System requirements, Succession boxes, Non-notable soundtracks, Age ratings. The different versions of Part II does not fall under any of this. Spy-cicle💥 14:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's an arbitrary list of stuff, as per the examples in WP:GAMECRUFT. The exact contents of different special editions is trivial - just marketing guff. Perhaps worthy of briefly summarising in prose, but not worthy of a table. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The Leak
Why is there no information on the leak? 158.26.65.167 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- there is, under Release. Popcornfud (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there no information on the (well documented) spoilers. 158.26.65.166 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- We should not include any spoilers in the article, but the leak probably should get its own section in the article regarding how/why the leaks happened and peoples' reactions to the leaks. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems a bit WP:RECENTISM if you ask me. Sure we can add some general reactions to it, but we don't really need an entire section devoted to it, especially since it changes nothing in the longterm (game was already delayed prior to this). ~ Dissident93 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mmm, I don't think it's recentism given the context. This is, by far, the most significant leak in video game history. I think it deserves a little bit more than just a couple of sentences. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it that, we'd need sources that call it the "most significant leak in video game history". Where have you seen that? There's nothing more to emphasize on. QueerFilmNerd 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, and I wasn't suggesting we put that exact verbiage into the article. But can you think of a more significant video game leak than this one? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it that, we'd need sources that call it the "most significant leak in video game history". Where have you seen that? There's nothing more to emphasize on. QueerFilmNerd 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mmm, I don't think it's recentism given the context. This is, by far, the most significant leak in video game history. I think it deserves a little bit more than just a couple of sentences. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems a bit WP:RECENTISM if you ask me. Sure we can add some general reactions to it, but we don't really need an entire section devoted to it, especially since it changes nothing in the longterm (game was already delayed prior to this). ~ Dissident93 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- We should not include any spoilers in the article, but the leak probably should get its own section in the article regarding how/why the leaks happened and peoples' reactions to the leaks. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there no information on the (well documented) spoilers. 158.26.65.166 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The controversy
Be vary. There seems to be an increasing on-line backlash against Naughty Dog, concerning leaks about abusive working conditions and toxic corporate environment. It appears that right wing circles are trying to hijack it to make it looks like the real controversy is about specific plot leaks. Reactionary influencers previously associated with GamerGate seem hyper-focused on pushing the narrative that the game is pro-feminist, pro-LGBTQ, anti-Christian and anti-male, and that the growing controversy is a backlash to these elements as opposed to details concerning production, and the company itself. Be prepared for possible vandalism by right wing sockpuppet accounts. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories: