Talk:Gex (video game)/Archive 1

Release date
The release date(s) are all unreferenced and are different in the text and the infobox? Carlwev (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

plot section
I still think a plot section is needed for this. This article has as much right to have one as those for the game's sequels do. Visokor (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you- this game has a fairly big plot to it so a plot section should probably exist. I'm in school at the moment so I can't work on it right now, but I'll have to start one when I get the chance today. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/19970419220719/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/010996c.html
 * You are a godsend for finding this. Whoever you are, you cheeky little unsigned discussion comment... Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sales Numbers (Next generation)
To quote one user "Regardless, its still a helpful note for future reference for editors" that's not how any article on this site works. The next generation number has no date. The person who linked the source assumed it was by the date of the publication, but that is not possible based on what we know. So the next generation sales numbers, with the source we have anyway, has no date, thus it can't be useful information by default. if we don't know when these sales numbers apply we don't have any historical context on the sales numbers. not only that, but since it's used to also dispute the 1 million sold Gex number, which comes from a claim that it sold that before it was released on other console, we NEED a date. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that, the note was created to clear up some sort of issue on sales. Even if you’ve proven something wrong (I’m not sure you have) it may be better to update/clear up the confusion rather than just delete it upright. Pinging, who may have made the original edit, as I know he commonly adds info from old magazines to articles. Perhaps he has further insight. Sergecross73   msg me  17:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It can't clear up the confusion if there's no date, because then the sales number doesn't provide any information. Since the same reference is used not only for Gex's sales figures, but also the 3DO's, it doesn't do anything but create MORE confusion, and clears nothing up at all imo.Spike Danton (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To recap: Two magazines give a higher sales figure in July. Another magazine gives a lower sales figure for the game the following November. Yes, the November magazine doesn’t explicitly state as of what date their sales figure is as of. They could be reporting old figures. But why would the magazine in November report sales figures that were clearly at least more than 4 months old (the July figures) without context or explanation? The scenario you’re asserting seems highly unlikely. There’s either conflicting sales figures, or some sloppy writing somewhere. Either scenario could use a note pointing this, which is what I was talking about. Either way it shouldn’t be deleted wholesale. Sergecross73   msg me  04:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, NExt gen has been caught with this type of vagueness before as has Compute! magazine and others. It also contradicts japanese sales which we do know the full LTD of. If there's no date we don't have enoguh information to make the determination the other sources are wrong. We also don't have enough to use it in the other article for 3DO sales numbers either. it doesn't make sense to keep it if it DOESN'T HAVE INFORMATION. Spike Danton (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, even if what you’re proposing is true and there’s no contradiction, it can still be a note to editors informing them that there’s no contradiction. Your opposition to a minor footnote to inform readers of various sources regarding sales is completely baffling. And please stop removing it. Read WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you don’t have consensus for a change, it isn’t implemented unless/until you get a consensus that supports your change. In this scenario, it should not be removed until you have a consensus to remove. Sergecross73   msg me  17:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the "note" makes a direct claim/implication that the 3DO sold 750,000 units and that this also effects gex but with no gate. it's wrong, it'ea misleading, and it has no date. So people will get the wrong idea, it's a bad source that has no information about the topics its discussing. It is not a NOTE to editors, it is a claim based on no information that will cause both editors and readers to think that at some period of time the 3DO had only sold 700k+ consoles, it doesn't help them realize there's no contradiction that BS and you know it. Since there's no date that does nothing to help the accuracy of the article and it makes the claim itself worthless especially with how it reads. There are several rules regarding sources and you seem to chose which ones you want to follow. No other part of this site would tolerate it. You seem intent on just reverting edits for no real reason. Spike Danton (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around, its not that complicated. If you can't understand, well fine, but don't say there's "no reason" or that it "says nothing" - that is blatantly false. I'll try once more to break it down more simply for you. If you're still unable to comprehend it, I'll see if someone from the Video Games WikiProject can explain it to you or something. Sergecross73   msg me  15:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sales explanation
Here is the content as it was before it was removed without consensus. (Also shown below.) I'm open to rewording/reworking, just not wholesale deletion.


 * Gex was one of the 3DO's best-selling games. In July 1995, roughly a month before it became a pack-in game, its sales exceeded one million units. (GamePro ref) (EGM ref)


 * ''EFN note: Sales figures for Gex remain unclear; in an apparent contradiction of the cited GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly articles, an article in Next Generation also cover-dated November 1995 says that the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer (the only platform Gex had been released for at the time) had sold only 750,000 units worldwide.

So what he have is three reliable sources reporting sales figures.
 * EGM - July 1995 - 1,000,000
 * GamePro - July 1995 - 1,000,000
 * Next Gen - November 1995 - 750,000

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong in their figures, just that all three should be represented in the article. I believe this information needs to be implemented in some capacity. I'm opening to rewording or reorganizing the content to display it in a different manner.

Spike Danton states that there isn't necessarily a contradiction, because while the 750,000 figure was reported in November, it wasn't necessarily "as of November" - they could have reported old sales figures. That explanation seems unlikely to me - why would a magazine report on information that is at least 4 months old, and not give any indication of reporting old figures? But again, I'm open to showing it as less of a "contradiction" and more of a "here's different figures from different sources" as well.

Input/suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  15:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the 2 sales figures - I support literally any scenario that presents both sales figures. I'm fine with how it was before it was removed. I'm fine with explaining it all in the prose itself. I'm open to other solutions. Just not deleting the figure wholesale. Sergecross73   msg me  15:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rewrite based on the fact the figures are unclear - Usually the main piece of information to impart is that "game x sold x copies", in the case of Gex, the main piece of information to impart to the user is that the sales figures are unclear. That needs to be the main point of the section; I suggest re-writing it from that viewpoint - it will be a bit "X says this, Y says this, and Z says that" but the only reliable information is that the reliable sales figures can't be treated as such. - X201 (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, I'm completely fine with that, I just don't agree with the info being deleted outright. So, if I'm understanding you right, it would be something like "In the October 1995 issue of GamePro and the November 1995 issue of EGM, Gex was reported to have sold over 1 million copies as of July 1995.(ref)(ref) However, in the November 1995 issue of Next Gen, it was reported to have sold 750,000 copies.(ref) - something like this? Sergecross73   msg me  12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the sort of thing, You could add a pre-amble to the start "Sales figures for Gex are unclear, with normally reliable sources contradicting each other. In the October issue of..." - X201 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I technically prefer that as well, though this other editor is pretty steadfast in his belief that there is no contradiction, so we'll see if anyone else takes his side on that or not. His theory is pretty shaky, so I imagine we'll have consensus for your addition above as well. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes this is the correct way to handle it. Anything further is original research. TarkusAB talk 15:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support this suggestion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the input. I figured it'd be this straightforward to find a consensus once I had some experienced editors who could discuss this constructively and according to how we typically handle this sort of thing on Wikipedia. I appreciate it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some confusion here; I thought I made this clear in my original edit, but the 750,000 figure is 3DO console sales, not Gex sales. Other than that, I support the current version of the article.
 * When I brought the matter up on the Wikiproject talk page a while back, another editor suggested that possibly the 1,000,000 Gex sales is units shipped to retailers, while the 750,000 3DO sales is units sold to customers. This is the best explanation I've seen so far. The 750,000 figure being undated doesn't resolve the contradiction, because it would have to be hideously out of date for the 1,000,000 figure to be plausible as a sell-through figure (a 1:1 attach rate just doesn't happen on non-pack-in, non-launch games).
 * By the way, Sergecross, just for future reference I'm one of those Wikipedia editors for whom pinging doesn't work for whatever reason.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. And I'll keep that in mind for the future - I'll drop you a talk page message rather than a ping. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me  22:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)