Talk:Goodbye Volcano High

Snoot Game
I don't think Snoot Game should be mentioned here as it's a fan-project with no official or direct relation to the main game. Additionally, Snoot Game has nothing to do with the main game's development, and I don't think it belongs in the development section. Rickraptor707 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I second this. It has nothing to actually do with the game itself and only brings unnecessary attention to an extremely toxic and transphobic title. Unless someone can come up with a justification, I honestly don't see why such a terrible "fan game" is necessary to mention here. 2601:600:8780:ECB0:D8D4:1261:9856:C4C0 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason to remove something. Doombruddah (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the Reception section is too politically charged and needs to be changed
I definitely agree that we ought to discuss the future of the article in a calm and collected manner, so here I present my issues with the Reception section.

"The game's use of LGBT characters and themes resulted in harassment campaigns by 4chan users, including Discord raids that forced the development team to lock their server. One anonymous group of developers, under the name of Cavemanon, created Snoot Game, an "anti-fangame" visual novel parody intended as a rival version of the game with alt-right themes, which was described by a KO_OP developer as "not made in good faith"."

This section feels too politically biased. This completely ignores the genuine cristicism of the art style and the premise of the story as per ca. 2020-2021.

Yes, Snoot Game does have themes of detransitioning, so I'm not sure how to handle that in the article.

Also, the post-release community reception is completely missing, as the gamers feel completely different towards GVH and Snoot Game compared to the journalists. The article should focus on it, too.

Other than that, I have no other issues with the Reception section. LajosFace (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is just a reciting of facts. It is not politically biased. As to what "gamers" think, that would require reliable independent sources to include in this article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are forums more reliable for citation of consumer-side reception than per se, YouTube videos? LajosFace (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainly asking because it's that, YouTube videos and Metacritic and OpenCritic reviews that you can gauge consumer reception for the two games. LajosFace (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that reporters are best used for gauging consumer reception you must be weird 90.131.38.95 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I posted a more nuanced version from the e621 Wiki of all places that I think should be a good compromise. Please check it out and give feedback on it! LajosFace (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert immediately, but copying from another wiki without specific WP:ATTRIBUTION is a copyright violation. Make sure the e621 wiki even uses a compatible license, and then you'll need to follow the instructions at Help:Adding open-license text to Wikipedia to properly attribute it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the sentences around so that the 4chan fangame and negative reception are separated to avoid any misconceptions the reader might have. BesNutGeb (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit late to this, but I figured I should reply since I blanked the "Legacy" section months ago which mention the fangame. I don't know if there are any new sources available, but my understanding back in January was that there was concerns with the quality of the Kotaku article.  (Or opinion, not really sure.)  I am not sure if there are still quality concerns, but I figured it should be brought up given the edit history since August of last year.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Legacy section should be reinstated as the snoot game article was merged as per this this discussion with this one and it's even a redirect. Galo223344 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Galo's point. There is literally only a single sentence left that mentions Snoot Game and even that's incredibly biased on the side of KO_OP. Cavemanon Games (The developers behind Snoot Game) claim that their game is not intended to compete with the original game (at least not financially) and that it's simply a critique of GVH's characters. I can't actually link the original website's link so that may be why there are no references to their side but it's just snootgame followed by . then xyz. Sure, this legal notice is very carefully worded, but I still think their side should at least be mentioned to show both sides of the story. The proof Kotaku's article provides of Snoot Game being made in bad faith is literally just an accusation from a random KO_OP employee, and the proof of it being a rival game is... nonexistent. It's just a baseless claim. Overall, I think that at the very least, Cavemanon's claims should be represented in the article in order to remove or reduce this bias. If we can't link Snoot Game's game page, then it may be best to remove this sentence all together. After all, the game is just a parody made by a small development team. Bxsically (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to restore it, then they can. The main problem to me is the sourcing.  KYM says that Know Your Meme is generally unreliable due to being user-generated content.  Kotaku is a situational source, so it might be useable. though Noah Laybolt doesn't seem to be a member of Kotaku's staff as this was the only thing Laybolt wrote for Kotaku, making it likely just an opinion piece.  Though, it is currently in the article, so it shouble be acceptable as a source.  As far as I can tell, there are no replacement sources that could work.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)