Talk:Cuphead/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tense

With no news since Summer 2014, this is almost certainly vaporware. Shouldn't we change the self-assured present indicative on this article? complainer (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's original research. As far as we're concerned, the reliable sources said it's due out in 2015 and we should expect it as such. If 2016 rolls around without update, we can change the context of those sentences, but we don't just make stuff up. It is not up to us to determine the state of the game's development. We only report the sources. czar ⨹ 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Game title

Shouldn't the title if this game be "Cuphead: Don't Deal With the Devil"? That what I'm seeing in the official website. 108.57.88.245 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For the article title, "Cuphead" is sufficient per the subtitle naming convention. "Cuphead" is the common name. As for whether it's subtitled, most of the WP:VG/RS reliable sources call it just "Cuphead". When they start adding a subtitle, we can too (just in the first paragraph, though). – czar 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Trilogy

The article about the game being a trilogy and/or having add on packages (a la Sonic and Knuckles) was faulty. The Polygon article (http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/4/5870623/cartoon-inspired-cuphead-is-going-to-be-a-trilogy) incorrectly references the Killscreen article (http://killscreendaily.com/articles/cuphead-roughly-40-done-hey-its-gonna-be-trilogy/) which, if you read it, shows that the developer doesn't have specific plans for a trilogy:

"But it will ultimately be a trilogy, of sorts! Moldenhauer was just spitballing, but he envisions a set of expansion packs which build on the weapons and elements introduced in the first game, sorta like the Sonic & Knuckles cartridge re-made earlier Sonic games. It's like a trilogy of games that will build Cuphead into its fullest possible Cuphead."

Furthermore, the developer himself clarified the statements on NeoGAF:

"Woah, woah, woah, woah! (Chad from studioMDHR to the rescue!) Sometimes certain things are taken out of context and then the internet morphs them into something else.
About the time spent working on the game: We started in 2010 with the idea, brainstorming sessions and the visual style before any basic prototyping started. It was a small part time thing that we played with. Now we are in full swing and even bringing on a few more talented folks to ensure we can cram everything we've planned into the game. We will slave more than a person can ever slave!
And as for planned trilogy, that's only sort of true, a correct statement would be this:
1. We have way too many ideas to fill our first game, especially from brainstorming sessions > we choose the ideas that sound amazing and put the others in our tickle trunk. (these 'tickle trunk' items are still awesome, but they haven't been fleshed out)
2. If all goes well with the first release of Cuphead, we want to create more, BUT! BUT! We wouldn't release content just for content - we would have to fully love the ideas before they would make the cut.
3. We aren't holding anything back from Cuphead to "have some stuff for a sequel". We are going all out on this first release to the best of our ability and within a timeline that makes sense to us. In our minds, we are treating Cuphead as if it were the only game we'll ever release.
4. If additional Cuphead content is released, it would be worked on as it's own separate beast with new ideas, bosses, weapons, etc. - but we are thinking it would be awesome to have it all linked up, so weapons, power-ups, and more can be used across all of the final content. But, we aren't going to get ahead of ourselves...we only care about launching our game next year.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.31.14 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We rely on what the reliable sources say, even though they're not always right. The part you recently removed was actually sourced to the Kill Screen article and not Polygon. Anyway, I rephrased it to match the ambiguity of the published work. czar ♔ 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking on Reddit this seems to have generated some controversy about sourcing. Would it be possible to quote the NeoGAF post as a noteworthy primary source if it can be affirmed that the account belongs to the game dev? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's erring on the side of original research. Self-published sources come with all sorts of caveats, like how would we be able to know that that NeoGAF post meant to refer to Kill Screen (July 3) instead of Polygon (July 4, picking up the former's story)? Or do we follow the rabbit hole further and blindly believe the 1,500-upvote hue and cry on a forum that castigates others for their lack of fact-checking integrity? This is why Wikipedia avoids the business of determining Truth and instead reports the major sources. If this or any event is truly noteworthy, a reliable, secondary source will cover it. As it stands, the whole "trilogy" business was removed in August 2014. If the sources are wrong, submit a correction there. – czar 11:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Daaaah, the tutorial!"

Should the infamous Dean Takahashi gameplay video incident be mentioned here, or should it be left out simply because it isn't really notable? 174.3.224.209 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It honestly isn't notable, nor is it something that makes the game more notable. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, especially considering how little has been written on the post-release reception so far. The game being notoriously difficult has definitely become associated with the game post-release as well as a source of praise and criticism. This has also been quite extensively covered by several news outlets, and not just gaming-related media (https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/5/16430516/cuphead-review-podcast, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/09/cuphead-review-game-visuals-thrills-1930s-animation). That's on top of considerable coverage of the incident by several highly influential social media channels (most notably seveal videos by PewDiePie).--95.168.138.39 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
So my edit was removed and the page is semi-protected now...? Are you serious? http://www.player.one/cuphead-gameplay-video-gamescom-dean-takahashi-119834 Here's a source on the matter that reports on the very incident. The incident still is referenced in media whenever the difficulty of this game is discussed to this day. --95.168.138.39 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, he did say that it wasn't really notable. 174.3.224.209 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

wikipedia will always conform to sjw stuff you cant mention these things in articles.. been proven over and over again. even though the article mentions the games "difficulty" citing the reason WHY people view it as difficult (like the deantak debacle) you're not allowed to mention it or you'll get undone + semi protect even though its not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:CB07:6400:7132:FA5C:1B7A:7C64 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cuphead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Official Cuphead Wiki

If anyone's interested, there's an official Cuphead wiki at https://cuphead.gamepedia.com Visokor (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Where does it state that it is officially ran or at least endorsed by the studio? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

You should change the screenshot of Cuphead and Mugman fighting Captain Brineybeard because that screenshot is of an early version of the game and isn't up to date. Minecraftfan04 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura CarteletTalk 15:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sakura Cartelet: IMO the user did clearly state that they wanted the screenshot to be replaced by a newer version, as the one presented is apparently from a pre-release build of the game. I am reopening the request, as it seems more likable for someone to find a better screenshot, instead of closing a valid ticket. Lordtobi (✉) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe so. But all they said was that the image was (allegedly) outdated and needs a replacement, but didn't provide a link to where said replacement could be found so it seemed (to me) to be just change X. Sakura CarteletTalk 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
True, though it leaning towards "Change X to newer X of not-given origin", but the user appears to be new to the encyclopedia, so we could as well assist them in getting the update through. This Polygon article might be a good start. I will go ahead and change the picture. Lordtobi (✉) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Switch to Canadian English?

Since Dissident just added where the developer is based, wouldn't it make sense to switch to Canadian English? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The article has, at least according to the template, used and abused American English since August 2014, when it was created by Czar. While I usually prefer the developer's native kind of English, Czar usually enforces mdy date format and American English format from the beginning, as is the case here. But since this requires a discussion either way, you can count me in as weak support. Lordtobi (✉) 19:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I only added that since the section later states they are based in Canada. I have no opinion either way, but doesn't the policy state that unless the article is heavily attached to a certain variety of English, that it should just use whatever was in use first (unless a consensus changes it). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly the case, which is why I'm asking for a consensus to change it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't exactly see a major need for a change, as it while it created by Canadians, the game is based and themed around American style of cartoons. But that being said, I wouldn't oppose a change either if that's what more people wanted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The game has no strong national ties to Canada or Canadian culture, usually by soil or some binding cultural connection to region as expressed in sourcing. The location of a product's headquarters, especially in this article's context, is trivia. czar 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Best Racing Game?

Looks like there was a bit of a mix up under the awards section. Cuphead won Best Visual Design at the Golden Joystick Awards, not Best Racing Game, as humorous as that would be. Would somebody be able to edit that in, since it appears this page is protected? Mirrdrag (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Lordtobi (✉) 08:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Legacy of Cuphead and game difficulty

It feels like the whole section has been written up by someone who has not even followed buzz about the game. Why is some racism "controversy" I've never heard of outside this article mentioned that was started by a source and a rather unknown author, but the discussion of the game's difficulty has been completely removed when it was explicitly discussed by some of the largest and most notable video game outlets (and I mean outside of the whole Polygon controversy before release)?

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cuphead-and-the-problems-with-difficulty-in-video-/1100-6454074/

https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/4/16422060/cuphead-difficulty-exclusion --217.85.59.106 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with adding a part about the difficulty, however, I'm unsure if the controversy thing should be outright removed. --Aleccat 19:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What else do you expect in this liberal echo chamber shithole? There's a reason contributors have dropped so much in the last five years.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018

Under "Artists" add:

Hanna Abi-Hanna, Animator Jake Clark, Animator Joseph Coleman, Animator Tina Nawrocki, Animator Thomas "Smo" Smolenski, Animator Danielle Johnson, Assistant Animator Caitlin Russell, Background Artist and Painter Ali Morbi, Painting Post-production and Seperation Maja Moldenhauer, Inking and Clean up Tyler Moldenhauer, Digital Painter Warren Clark, Hand-Lettering Artist Mark Simonson, Type/Letter/Font Guru

Source: [1] TinaNawrocki (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately, we are unable to provide full credits for games on WP - we have to stick to lead positions for consistency and conciseness. (Imagine how many people would need to be listed for AAA games like Call of Duty). If there are independent sources that identify the unique contributions of an artist, we can include them. --Masem (t) 00:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to this, animators almost never belong in the infobox, even if notable and/or in a leading role. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On the racism controversy stuff...

Regarding this revert [2] I do think a smaller section on this apparent racism issue is not undue, but the proposed content is far too much. It's at most a paragraph under the reception section. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had thought of condensing the section as well. However, I didn't know how it would be done, so I figure someone else would be better at writing it. Perhaps the section on the racism issue as you described can be re-added. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Angeldeb82 as the user who added the section in the first place. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought of that as well. Do you think you can add back the racism issue to the article? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
First, don't make it a separate section - cut it down to a paragraph, using partial quotes, etc., within the Reception section. The racism stuff was there, but seemingly short-lived, so we should mention it but not go in-depth here. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I re-added that thing as a paragraph. Does this look okay to you? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Personally I still think this is way too long and potentially POV pushing. We don't normally have a paragraph about a single critic's criticism about gameplay design, do we? EDIT: Nevermind, I see Masem basically fixed every issue I had with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Seems this is all based on one essay from a possibly unreliable source. Web site 'Unwinnable'? I don't see the writer cited in any other Wikipedia articles. --SubSeven (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If there was only the essay and nothing else, I would agree, that's UNDUE. However, a few other sites commented on that essay, and the general notion of the racist-angle that was linked to the Fleischman animation (speaking in defense of Cuphead) so that's reasonable to include. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about the sources in the article? The only one to address the essay was another unreliable source, Niche Gamer. The developers did touch on the racism angle in multiple interviews, but that was not in relation to the essay. I would propose moving the developers' comments on racism to the 'Development' section and discarding the rest. --SubSeven (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Kotaku specifically named it out. [3] --MASEM (t) 01:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
OK... then their response should be cited, not Niche Gamer. --SubSeven (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That this article will cover some lone lunatic's unfounded accusation of racism but not the takashi debacle (the only reason 40% of people know about this game) is a perfect respresentation of what's wrong with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.213.196 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you (seems like if one writer claims a game is racist, it brings tons of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT baggage with it), but what is this takashi debacle you speak of? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Toonami review

should the review from Toonami be mentioned? They gave Cuphead a 9 out of 10. Visokor (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Toonami does game reviews now? I'd say no because they aren't listed on other articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Downloadable Content

StudioMDHR announced new downloadable content for Cuphead called "Cuphead: The Delicious Last Course", and I think the article needs a "Downloadable Content" section to reflect this information. The DLC is going to release in 2019.MacKing92 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Exclusive

The Wiki page makes the assumption that StudioMDHR did this completely solo. However, it is clear that Microsoft funded the game and is further an exclusive to Microsoft (indefinitely). Notable involvement should be part of this page, as it is on other pages when indie games partner with a major publisher, as it changes the perspective that it is a Microsoft exclusive that is majority-funded by Microsoft. For example, Halo Wars was made by Ensemble Studios and their page has significant mentions of Microsoft's involvement.

Sources: [4] [5] Kiro419 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources make no mention of Microsoft funding, other possibilities include higher royalties or bonuses paid by MS post-release, but that would also be an assumption. After all, they sold their own homes to finish this game, which does not sound like major outside funding. Lordtobi (✉) 07:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Mac Version

A Mac version of the game has been released on Steam on October 19th. [1] DrDeath (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://steamcommunity.com/games/268910/announcements/detail/1709572363921243276
DrDeath,  Done. Lordtobi (✉) 12:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

The following line: "Cuphead's gameplay is based around continuous boss fights,"

Should be replaced with Cuphead's gameplay is based around continual boss fights, for vocabulary's sake Tomandrewlento (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2018

new movie cuphead the movie coming in 2019 new new new new 51.223.84.246 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Still not the first to use old animation cells

Technically speaking, even though this game is well polished and overly ambitious. It's still not the first to use old animation cells for gameplay. Escape from Cartoon Hell which was a free game using the openbor program, used old ub iwerks animation cells and backgrounds. It was crude and poorly made, but the concept was there... you also had to fight a devil character in hell... this was made in 2006/2007 and the YouTube upload date for this game proves it. 

Kolbek79 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If it received no coverage besides a self-published YouTube video, then it fails WP:N. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tesla cars are not a platform for the infobox

Keeping in mind that Tesla's OS runs a Linux variant, and secondly that only part of the game is coming as a proof of concept, it is not appropriate to add Tesla as a platform here. We can mention this proof of concept in the body. --Masem (t) 02:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbys kids meal toys

I think in legacy there should at least be a mention of how there was a cuphead Arby's deal to have toys in the kid's meals based on the game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwiva1 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Split the Cuphead Show to a separate article?

I was just wondering if we should split the animated series paragraph to a full article since we have info about the show, footage from the show and some knowledge about when it will be released. LittleMAHER1 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Would not recommend this until we have a firm date of when the show is to first be broadcast, or unless a major info dump about the new show becomes available. As there's not much more you can yet expand on that paragraph until more info is available. --Masem (t) 06:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
ok then I guess we just wait for more info then LittleMAHER1 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuphead/Archive_1&oldid=1126417352"