Talk:God of War (2018 video game)

Requested move 15 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by a page mover)  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

God of War (PlayStation 4 video game) → God of War (upcoming video game) – Per WP:NCVGDAB, the platform in a title is only used for ports and remakes; as this God of War will be a new entry, the year of release should be part of the title. As there is no release date known, it should be called "upcoming" in the meantime. Compare Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game) and Doom (2016 video game) and the move discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am not in favor of the move. Though other articles may have done it, I don't feel that "upcoming video game" is good for an article title. PlayStation 4 in the title (until the definite title or release year is known) better clarifies its distinction from the original game in my opinion. -- JDC808  ♫  20:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's WP:CONSISTENCY for a reason. God of War happens to be for one platform, for upcoming multiplatform games we wouldn't use something like "Tomb Raider (PlayStation 4 and Xbox One video game)" either. That you don't "feel" it is good is kind of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That gives even better reason to keep PlayStation 4 for the time being. It's an easier identifier for people searching for the game, and it lets people know that it is still an exclusive, as opposed to a multi-platform game, which could be inferred from just having "upcoming". -- JDC808  ♫  17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just going to ignore WP:CONSISTENCY? And "it is still an exclusive"? Are you suggesting that it might become multiplatform? And that the reader might start to think it will be released for several platforms? This is still WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will ever become multi-platform, but who's to say it won't? Who's to say that Sony won't decide to sell it one day? I am going to ignore WP:CONSISTENCY here because that isn't necessarily always the right solution. I'm thinking about the reader here, not some guidelines, which aren't set in stone. And yes, there are readers who may think it could come to Xbox or even PC. I've seen it countless times. -- JDC808  ♫  19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, that is a weird reverse form of WP:CRYSTAL; because it might happen you are against having "upcoming" instead of "PlayStation 4"? This make no sense. The upcoming The Legend of Zelda game wasn't called The Legend of Zelda (Wii U video game)" either. What Wikipedia readers think that? How do you know this? I appreciate your hard work on the God of War articles, but you're just ignoring guidelines that are based upon consensus because of your own personal preference, without pointing to any guidelines. That sounds like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking specifically about Wikipedia readers. I was talking about people all over the internet in gaming forums, etc. And for a guideline, WP:BOLD. There are many things I disagree with in regards to Wikipedia "policies" and "guidelines". Naming conventions are one of them. It's not OWN, it's a disagreement that the articles must be one way because it's apparently "consistent". -- JDC808  ♫  19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "People all over the internet in gaming forums"? That's as vague as it is WP:OR. What does WP:BOLD have to with it? Wikipedia is not a free-for-all; there are guidelines like WP:CONSISTENCY, which you can't just ignore. And yeah, to me that is WP:OWNERSHIP, because you fail to bring up a single valid guideline and are just saying what you personally like best. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No where on WP:NCVGDAB does it say that "upcoming" is to be used for upcoming games. Upcoming is not even mentioned on there. You're basing CONSISTENCY on a disambiguation guideline that doesn't exist at the current moment for upcoming games. If it does exist, please link the correct one. -- JDC808  ♫  20:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm basing WP:CONSISTENCY on similarly titled articles, like the ones I've mentioned. You're right, WP:NCVGDAB doesn't say anything about "upcoming", but it so clearly about the function of a platform in the title (emphasis mine):


 * 2. For original video games: Disambiguate using numerics and subtitles when part of the official title (...). Further disambiguation can be made by appending "(video game)" or "(YEAR video game)".
 * 3. For platform-specific remakes/ports: Disambiguate by appending "([platform])" to the title (...)


 * God of War is a new original game, not a remake, where the platform disambiguation is for. That's being consistent. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, it's going to be moved to God of War (2017 video game) or God of War (2018 video game) eventually, so the PlayStation 4 disambiguation was never going to stick anyway. —Flax5 13:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither would "upcoming". -- JDC808  ♫  17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: the platform-based disambiguation wouldn't stick. "Upcoming" is closer to what the final title will be, as dictated by the manual of style, and won't lead to editors getting confused and thinking platform-based disambiguation is policy. —Flax5 17:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How is "upcoming" closer to the final title? If "God of War" ends up being the final title, PlayStation 4 would stick more as people who aren't new to the franchise will more than likely call it "God of War PlayStation 4" or "God of War PS4", or they'll just revert to calling it "God of War 4". -- JDC808  ♫  17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's closer because "upcoming video game" and "201X video game" are both based on time of release and the former will naturally be resolved into the latter. You're correct that most people think of games in terms of platform rather than release date, but that gets cumbersome fast when disambiguating games available for multiple platforms, and it seems weird to make exceptions. —Flax5 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it may seem weird doesn't mean it's wrong. -- JDC808  ♫  19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support I agree that our VG guidelines suggest using "Upcoming" since the year is not yet known, but I would not be against the PS4 disamb. given that this is the only platform it will be out on and the only GoW originally targeted to the PS4. --M ASEM (t) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral The title, (assuming it's final and doesn't get subtitles in the future) will just be changed to God of War (201? video game) when the date is known. So for now, I don't think it should matter. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  03:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * and, what about WP:CONSISTENCY? Before a release date was known, and before the subtitle Breath of the Wild it had "upcoming" in the title, and not something along the lines of "Wii U video game". So does Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game), which so far is PC exclusive. So did the multiplatform Doom (2016 video game). soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a guideline, and I can't remember the exact link for it, but basically, just because one article does it, doesn't mean others have to. How many times does this "upcoming" case actually happen? -- JDC808  ♫  12:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're talking about WP:OTHERSTUFF? That one is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions though. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, perhaps we could just make that standard then? Don't think anybody would be against it. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  10:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support based on the results of similar discussions from Doom and the Zelda: Breath of the Wild talk page, although I agree that a standard guideline would help as this seems to be a recurring issue. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - this is how it was most recently handled with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild which was pretty much the exact same scenario as this in all respects. Disambiguate it "upcoming" now, and move it to a release year, or subtitle, as soon as that is officially announced. Sergecross73   msg me  13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Doesn't matter much either way at this stage, but "upcoming" has been the community standard. czar  17:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - disambiguators based on date are preferred over disambiguators based on platform, which, according to WP:NCVGDAB, should be reserved for remakes/ports not original video games like this one.  Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk)  14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per the VG guidelines of WP:NCVGDAB.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Since God of War (PS4) is an original game, it should be called "God of War (upcoming video game)" or "God of War (YEAR video game)", as stated in WP:NCVGDAB. "(PlayStation 4 video game)" is for platform-specific remakes or ports. – // span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Hounder4  // 11:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose since "upcoming" is not a permanent solution, the redirect will have to be deleted once the game is no longer upcoming. I don't see an issue with the current disambiguation, so it's better to leave it alone and move the article when a release date will be announced. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:NCVGDAB says that the platform in parentheses in the title is for ports and remakes, not for new and original games. Is deleting a redirect such a hassle? I would suggest redirecting to main series' article. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, redirects like these pop up at WP:RFD all the time, and I'd rather not deal with it again if we can help it. Just wait until a release date has been announced and move it to its permanent title then. If this is passed, the title will move twice instead of once, and I'd like to avoid bouncing around with a couple different titles. In the meantime, this is the best I can come up with, and I don't think it's confusing. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is confusing either, but because it WP:DOESNTHURT doesn't mean we can't change it. If you would want to see WP:NCVGDAB changed we could try to find a new consensus of course, but you would rather not follow guidelines, just so you wouldn't have to deal with a possible RfD in the future? What's wrong with changing the redirect to God of War (series) if that were to happen? I also again have to repeat myself by pointing to the other video games with "upcoming" in the title, which would follow WP:CONSISTENCY. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think changing it to "upcoming" is worse than the status quo because we'll have to deal with the redirect once it's released (retargeting it to the series would be misleading unless there's another game upcoming). If you want to point to consistency, I'd instead argue that you should consistently not use upcoming for any games. At least with the current set up, you'd only have to update the title once, rather than twice if this proposal is passed. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So far you're only saying it will be a nuisance to fix the redirect. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but did you happen to check out WP:NCVGDAB? The platform disambiguation in the title is intended for remakes or ports, not new games. That's why we've got LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game) and LittleBigPlanet (2009 video game) for the PSP. There are several articles that currently use "upcoming", like ones I've shown before. The PlayStation 4 exclusive Spider-Man (upcoming video game) also uses "upcoming". Like I said, God of War happens to be a PlayStation 4 exclusive, and that's why "PlayStation 4" seems like a good idea. But if this would be a multiplatform game it wouldn't have "(PlayStation 4, Wii U and Xbox One video game)" in the title. So if we're trying to be consistent, it shouldn't have PlayStation 4 in the title. I'm sorry that changing or deleting a redirect in the future might be a hassle, but I don't see why that should mean we shouldn't be consisted in article titles in the meantime. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's going to be moved, so what's the problem? I'm just pointing out the perils of titling an article with "upcoming." The title God of War (upcoming video game) is going to be deleted after this game is released, as they regularly are at WP:RFD, so fair warning. And yes, I would support that guideline being changed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out the guideline WP:COMMONNAME for Soetermans. Right now, "God of War PS4" is what this game is most commonly referred to as. Keeping "PlayStation 4" as opposed to "upcoming" would remain consistent with the common name. -- JDC808  ♫  19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title
Before this turns into an edit war I'd love to know why the title is pending? I already deleted that portion once but my edit got reverted by JDC808 saying that "There are sources who have backed the title, but there are sources who aren't certain this is the final name." Ok, so what are those sources that "aren't certain" and why does their uncertainty justify to mention that the title IS pending? It doesn't make sense. If you mention something like that then you have to back it up AND there must be good a good reason for the source to base this is. Because for all I know the title of the game is "God of War" and multiple secondary sources confirm that based on what the primary source, Sony, has said and shown about the game (trailers, interviews, on the website). I have yet to come across an article that says that the game's title is "god of War" for now but is not final and that they know that because [insert reason here]. What is your source JDC808? It should be removed until it is certain that the title is a working title and not final.KingSiri (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree., per WP:BURDEN you can provide the sources, saying "there are sources" in an edit summary is not okay. That another sign of WP:OWNERSHIP. I again can compare the upcoming The Legend of Zelda; every single one since Zelda II had a subtitle, but we didn't use "title pending" either in the lead. And even if there are sources that say the title might change, why mention that in the lead, before platform, developer and publisher?  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's a sign of ownership when there are sources. I will provide them momentarily (there are a couple already sourced in the article). -- JDC808  ♫  13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IGN: For now the game seems to just be titled simply "God of War."
 * This article by Cory Barlog doesn't actually confirm the title, he simply refers to it as "a new God of War".
 * To your credit, KingSiri, there are other articles who are claiming this to be the title (they are also already sourced in the article), but none of them have actually stated that Cory Barlog, Santa Monica, or Sony have actually confirmed the title to just be "God of War". -- JDC808  ♫  13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the Zelda example doesn't really work here. All previous God of War's (except the original) have had a number or a subtitle. This one doesn't at the current moment and no secondary sources (at least that I have seen) have verified that any of the above primary sources have confirmed the title. -- JDC808  ♫  13:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But come on, the sources you linked assume it. And I don't think that an assumption confirms this as a fact. All official sources title the game "God of War". In no way whatsoever is is it ever suggested that the title is pending. Also check: God of War listing on PlayStation Us website and the compare it to Spider-Man PS4 listing on PlayStation US website, Final Fantasy VII Remake listing on PlayStation US website and New Hot Shots Golf listing on PlayStation US website which all carry "Working Title" in their listings clearly indicating that the title isn't final, "God of War" does not.KingSiri (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of those sources I linked was written by the director of the game just a few days ago. You would think that he of all people would confirm the title, but all he says is "a new God of War". -- JDC808  ♫  17:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

hack and slash label
Why does this game not have one ? It should be qualified in this case since there's melee combo system in place much like the older games in the series ... 135.0.52.247 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ref ideas
Just found this new interview. Hope it helps.Tintor2 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've been meaning to add more developmental information, but I keep getting side tracked by other things. Gonna try to get on this next week. -- JDC808  ♫  05:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The game was also the cover story for the February 2018 issue of Game Informer. I have a copy if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a friend who also has it. I'll probably borrow it from them. -- JDC808  ♫  05:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! I wasn't reading it thinking of additions in mind, but from what I recall, I don't think there wasn't much to add that isn't already here, or can't be found through online sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic statement
Please follow MOS:VG's suggestions on how to state the overall critic reception. It's directly attributable and sourcable, while any generic statements of "Received critical acclaim" are not. Yes, it is true there may be reviews that don't represent universal acclaim, but we are not suggesting otherwise, simply denoting the reception as categorized (and directly attributed to) Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We also should not be linking the score directly in the lead, as we already should not be mentioning it in the reception section either, per "Reduce minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information" in the MOS:VG. Not sure why is claiming other FAs do it, and if they do, they should be changed to follow the MOS. There are also other issues with his preferred version of the lead, such as WP:GAMECRUFT exact naming of his new weapon and separating a non-used citation in its own section (just cite something with it in prose, having it there as "further reading" is not that much more helpful than adding it to the talk page as a ref improvement link). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This section was specifically about the Reception section itself. I've no strong opinion on the lead at this time. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note, there can be exceptions, which is stated at the top of the MOS. I haven't edited the page since my last revert of, but since then, the Reception now says "God of War received "universal acclaim" according to review aggregator Metacritic, making it the highest-scoring game in the franchise." Four other games in the franchise also have universal acclaim according to Metacritic. The score here in this case brings sense to that statement of why this one has the highest score in the franchise. Also, I wasn't "stealthy undoing it in hopes [you] wouldn't notice" as you said in one of your edits. It didn't alert you because there were other intermittent edits that were also reverted. In regards to "other FAs", I wasn't specifically talking about them including the score in the lead (though the edits in that regards that have been made since my last edit look good). That comment was mainly about the lead in general in how it was structured (and those other FAs I was referring to are all the previous games in this series, which I worked extensively on to bring them to FA). -- JDC808  ♫  01:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There can be exceptions to every guideline, what makes this game special? Explain why it's universally acclaimed, not just a score and where it ranks among other highly reviewed games. All of this Metacritic cruft was removed from the Breath of the Wild article for many of the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also referred to...
Also about the lead (CC, why does the first sentence mention the supposed common name of God of War? It puts a lot of emphasis right away, with seven references. Regardless of WP:REFLEAD, those references are instances of the game being referred to as such, there not sources about the name. And to compare with other FAs, Grand Theft Auto V doesn't mention GTA V. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I wanted to remove that as well (or at least put it in a note), but couldn't think of how to improve it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Both those names seem to be used fairly commonly (God of War 4 more so), so I think it's reasonable to include them in the opening sentence. But the references are excessive and disruptive. Lizard  (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I've been told, if there's an "also referred to", it supposed to be referenced by at least three sources. -- JDC808  ♫  00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems oddly arbitrary. Is there a guideline that says that? Lizard  (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure about a guideline. This is the edit where I was told that. -- JDC808  ♫  04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my edit that JDC808 linked, I don't recall my thinking then, but I would assume I meant along the lines of making sure we had multiple sources referring to the game as such, and it was not simply a one off thing. A WP:CITEBUNDLE might be appropriate here as a styling alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 06:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree it's helpful to have multiple sources to confirm it isn't a one-off thing, but going back to what said: these are merely instances of the game being referred to such names as opposed to sources explicitly stating the game is sometimes referred to as these names. So we're actually dabbling in WP:SYNTH here.  Lizard  (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this be added to the category "Video games set in Norway"?
Just wondering. --SiberianDante (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Technically ancient Norway (if there's a CAT for that), but don't see why not. -- JDC808  ♫  02:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sales figure
https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/05/25/god-of-war-sales-top-5-million-in-the-first-month

Can the source be equal to 5M retail sales without any DLs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.173.103 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It can be, but that source does not break it down. -- JDC808  ♫  02:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note there's been similar querying of the sales and mentioning of the "DLs" on the God of War franchise page on 06/01/2019. Half the IP address (180.217.167.74) is identical to the one used by the above anonymous user, so I suspect it could be the same person. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My two cents: There seems to be a valid concern here that the sources for 5 million units sold are not explicitly retail only, and so adding 2 million digital sales from a second source (A different source altogether) may be artificially inflating. The safest bet here is to say "over 5 million", with the sales section noting "at least 2.1 million digital", unless someone can concretely prove the 5 million and 2.1 million are separate distinct figures with no overlap. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I can secede to that until we can get a concrete source breaking down the exact numbers. I wish Sony would just put out another chart breaking down the units sold for each game like they did back in 2012 (although that didn't include Betrayal, but that's beside the point). -- JDC808  ♫  20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Status as first AAA game with a one-shot camera
Doesn't Portal also have a one-shot camera? It would load the next level while you were in the elevator, making it appear seamless. Is Portal not a AAA game? GrayWolf512 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If it does, it is not noted in its article, and a quick google search provided no results. -- JDC808  ♫  07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about plot
Hi there. I was looking at this line, from the Plot section: As such, Kratos returns home to unearth his old weapon, the Blades of Chaos and is haunted by Athena's spirit. Should "weapon" be in the plural? If they are the Blades of Chaos, he must have at least two (one per hand); so that's two weapons. If you reply, please ping me. Thanks! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a weird thing. Technically, the Blades of Chaos (or whichever blades we happen to be talking about in the series) is composed of two blades. The reason the singular "weapon" is used is because we're looking at the Blades as being one unit instead of two separate weapons, for example, him wielding the Blades of Chaos and the Leviathan Axe at the same time. This was something that was brought up to me in an FAC on one of the previous games. -- JDC808  ♫  20:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me (and pinging me). I'm currently working on an FAC, but after that, if you're willing to give this another shot at FAC, I'll be happy to go over the article and try and make some improvements. It’s very strongly written, but I do generally agree with some of the criticisms brought up in the first attempt (I had a look last night). If you want to work with me, I'd love to collaborate. Otherwise, that's okay — happy to let you maintain this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would be great. I had been meaning to get back to trying to get this to FAC again, and address some lingering issues from the previous review, just hadn't gotten around to it for various reasons (including forgetting to). -- JDC808  ♫  00:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)