Talk:BioShock: The Collection

Reverted edits
Hi ,

Usually you and I are pretty much on the same page, but this I don't understand. What do you mean with "newly" indicates that they were remastered "for" this collection and not just collected afterwards? Afterwards from what? There aren't any other remastered BioShock games, so saying "newly" is redundant. Nothing would suggest that there were any other "remastered" versions, but using "newly" would suggest there were other remastered versions available. Saying "acclaimed", even with a source, sounds like a WP:PEACOCK term to me. It doesn't add anything else information; it doesn't say why it is acclaimed or by who. The section in which it is currently in, BioShock: The Collection, seems like a "development" section, and not a reception section, so why mention the reception of Minerva's Den at all in that section? To make a comparison, the GameSpot piece says "We'll have to wait to see how the remastered versions of the BioShock games fare, but the original versions all received glowing reviews from GameSpot. BioShock received a 9 in our review, BioShock 2 scored an 8.5, and BioShock Infinite earned itself a 9". Mentioned specifically in the source, but we wouldn't add that here either, right? Here you are saying sources do not call it "microsoft windows". Polygon says Windows PC, and not just "Windows". VG247, Kotaku, GameSpot and IGN just say PC. So I don't understand why you're making piped links from Microsoft Windows to Windows because of that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it's the start of the article, the reader has no idea whether the remasters were merely collected as some sort of compilation work or whether this collection is the first release of the remasters. If that still doesn't make sense, think of how the Halo Master Chief Collection includes one new and one old remake. Instead of "new", you could say that they were remastered specifically for this edition, though I think the former has the same effect with a greater economy of words (though perhaps for no benefit if it doesn't make sense to the reader). "Acclaimed" can be rephrased too, if you want, but the point is that Polygon (correctly) called attention to Miranda's Den as a standout feature of the series (which it is). We could pull other sources that confirm this, but I think Polygon is sufficient and that it's better to note Miranda's Den separately from the list of all DLC that follows. It doesn't need to say who acclaimed it because it was widely acclaimed by all—which is the point of the generalized statement. That's kind of the point of following the reliable sources. When they describe a game's reception as acclaimed, they do the work of us drawing such a conclusion ourselves. Since this isn't a normal video game article, the first section is more of an overview ("contents and changes", as labeled), so it explains the context of what is included in the collection. It is written such that someone who knows nothing about the series can easily pick up on what components were added, reused, repurposed, etc. It wouldn't be relevant to put GameSpot's reviews of the game here, or even that the series itself is acclaimed, but there is a service to the reader in highlighting Miranda's Den as a noteworthy standout among what follows and reads as a relatively monotonous list of add-ons. The Windows discussion is for another page—there are several threads open on this topic, but it stems from "Microsoft" being a disambiguator for our "Windows" page. The operating system is known in our sources as just Windows, not Microsoft Windows (not just BioShock-related sources, I'm talking all games and general news coverage). It's like calling a console the Nintendo GameCube or the Sega Dreamcast when the disambiguation is not needed from other GameCubes and Dreamcasts. This has not been contentious at all in the past and I consider the rationale really straightforward but if others disagree, it might be worth a discussion at WT:VG. czar  21:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Infinite just a port?
As brought up by Digital Foundry (of Eurogamer), the XOne and PS4 versions of BioShock: Infinite are simply ports of the PC game. The article, on the other hand, currently states that the Microsoft Windows version of Infinite will simply not receive the remastered version. Multiple sources on this article support the latter, building on 2K's statement "BioShock Infinite is not being remastered on PC because it already meets current-gen console standards and runs smoothly on high visual settings." Maybe it was not said well, 2K meaning that no version of Infinite will be remastered? Is it dodgy marketing? Confirmations appreciated. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, it's basically acknowledging that at Infinite's release, the 360/PS3 versions were using low-res textures as to play well there, and the PC version could be considered a remaster using HD at that point. Now wit this release, the Xbox One and PS4 versions are getting that already-existing remastered version (same game, better graphics) while there's no effective change on the PC side. It's all consistent with both old and new information, it's just probably bad marketing to truly call the Xbox One and PS4 upgrade a "remaster". --M ASEM (t) 13:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to confirm
[http://store.steampowered.com/sub/127633/ Here is the Steam page for the full "The Collection". It is definitely a Windows product, even though it ships with the as-is version of Infinite. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)