Talk:ReCore

Recore content removal dispute
Yell? I have had two editors come in, and instead of constructively helping me build the article to what they view as "correct", they just delete it about sixty-thousand times for no other purpose than to toy around with me. Closely copying is when you change two words and leave the rest be. In my case however i have already completely paraphrased the text. There is only so far you can go on a text before it no longer pertains accurately to it's topic. Wiki policy also states, "If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page." Further, you both have been working off of an objectionable point of view, as i can claim that it is not too similar, and you can claim it is, there is no standard here to distinguish who is right and who is wrong. Please do not get me wrong, I am not trying to fight with anyone, though it may seem so as i am a little frustrated, but in my absence here, i have been working on Halopedia, and Destinypedia, to give me some basic experience in the field, as last time, I had an admin all up in my gravy after less than a month for no other reason than that I was practicing wiki tools on my personal works. If you guys could show me how the article can be properly paraphrased without deleting it, instead of just making claims and hitting the erase button, maybe i could learn how things are done, and you don't have to call in a higher admin to settle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is "toying" with you; Bold, revert, discuss is how things generally work around here. No one intends any offense. Is there a reason you don't simply write a summary of the plot in your own words? The text is not paraphrased, simply rearranged. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand you don't mean offense, but that OTHER editor is the one who started going button happy. Rearranged would be retaining exact wording but in different order, which i could demonstrate if you like. Paraphrasing it making sure to capture all of the relevant info about the setting to help readers gain a clear view of the situation. If I paraphrase the way that other editor thinks, i will have a page that says nothing but what it says in the overview. The whole point of me adding this section in the first place was to elaborate on the "summary" up top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it will be hard to write the plot summary until the game is actually released tomorrow(and played). I would suggest just waiting until then, especially if it will be hard to expand on what information we have already until then. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Very well. The only thing I am worried about though, is that when I actually do write the article, Glitchygirl is going to come in skipping around and deleting things with her magic wand. I mean she did not even have the decency to come and talk with me about it to resolve things. Nope. She was going to sit there hitting that delete button till the Rapture. Oh that is right, she does not believe in such an event. But anyway, thanks for being patient and reasonable with me. I will try to revise the summary properly next time. Arcmind (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * :) Cognissonance (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

}:| You! Don't touch my articles until you can offer something in the way of useful, or unless you bring someone who actually has some sense of actual integrity and that can actually do something constructive with their time. Otherwise, we are going to be engaging in a lot of edit wars. Arcmind (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OWNER regarding claiming ownership over an article, as well as WP:EDITWAR. Edit warring can result in being blocked. You might also want to give a read over WP:CIVIL and tone down the borderline personal attacks. -- ferret (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am fully aware of all three of the Wiki policies and was not in violation of any of them up to date. So far, all I have done is become rather agitated by a certain editor who seems to take a liking to messing around with me. If you read the edits they made to the article i was working on, none of their remarks offered anything to edify me in the way of what they were requesting I do, or why they continually forced their opinion on me. As a matter of fact, I tried to fix the article three times, and all of which were deleted without any explanation as to how they could be fixed despite the existence of several wiki policies that I quoted for her edification. In reality, I made no attacks, but rather advised against further contact with me due to her unhelpful, rather frustrating edits which only waste my time, and make things harder for me. If you are a fair judge, you will see that I have had no desire to fight with anyone, as 331dot and i had no problem working things out when he explained the situation. Therefore, in accordance with wiki policy, i have asked for the opposing editor to back down, as no consensus can ever be reached with someone who expresses no interest in reaching such an end. Arcmind (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Grab Her By The Pacini
@ Lordtobi Since only Mark Pacini is credited as the director of ReCore in the sources - established accordingly in the article body - how does that square with the fact that he is listed in the infobox as a designer? His Game Director title isn't listed under Design like Masahiro Yasuma. Cognissonance (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pacini, just as Yasuma, has the "game director" listing; while Yasuma's credit is sectioned at "Game Design", it should be mentioned that Armature and Asobo's credits lack sections entirely. Cleary, the "directors of development" are listed just above, why would they receive a different referring? Saying "all sources [...]" gives the same result: "game director", which is being referred to as lead designer (also note that Pacini is a game designer, not a director). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Lordtobi I am confused and slightly bewildered. What made you think their credits lack sections? My concern is that people will read directed by Mark Pacini and see Rob Brown, Gregory John and David Dedeine as director(s) in the infobox instead. Doesn't that create inconsistency? Cognissonance (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It does yes, but we have to stay with the facts. See here, as the credits roll, only the direct job titles are given ("Directors of Development" being Brown and John, as mentioned); fast-forward to Comcept's credits, and everything is ordered into "Production", "Game Design", "Art", etc., before listing the job title and the personnel. It becomes clear here that "game director" is credited under "game design" and is therefore categorized as such also for Armature. Additional "creative direction" credit from Asobo then comes onto the directors field from Asobo's credits. We either have to agree to set "game director" (Armature) = "game director" (Comcept), which is most likely the case, and adapt both aspects to it, or set Pacini as the director, although I would oppose that. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Lordtobi Do you mean to say we could handle it like this
 * because I could agree to that. Cognissonance (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have to decide on either mainstreaming the article the way the infobox currently represents it (which, from my POV, is correct); or agree on the version you presented. For the latter, the question would be why there is no gameplay direction, if we were to say that "game director" is a development director, and why it is seperated from "directors of development", etc. All sources that mention it establish the same: "game director", which they receive from the presskit. Do you have anything besides the mention that confirms Pacini and Yasuma as the directors of the entire development, and not just the gameplay development? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Lordtobi A director of development serves in a different capacity than a game director. Cognissonance (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is likely a misinterpretation; a game funded by a publisher does not need fundraisers, no? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Lordtobi Whether or not it was needed veers into conjecture and doesn't change that the title of development director is devoid of any creative involvement, as opposed to that of Pacini. Because of this, I want him reinstated as director along with Weiss, Fish and Yasuma as designers. Cognissonance (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fair, I'll get to it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fair, I'll get to it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Asobo's role
Asobo role is considered as a support studio. Not being mentioned as often as the Armature/Comcept by secondary sources (i.e. see the announcement trailer), and they were referred to as a support studio for multiple times.
 * This source from GameSpot, Joseph Staten wrote that Asobo was "outside help" and was there to "supplement" Armature, and he mentions very specifically that "the heart and soul of [ReCore] is absolutely the team of Comcept and the team at Armature."
 * This press release from Asobo only described their own role as "support"
 * This source from MCVUK shows that while Comcept's might not have a lot of people workin on the game, they are working on all the fundamental ideas. Asobo was only there to "flesh out" some stuff.

Both primary and secondary sources stated that Asobo is only a support dev. A support studio will definitely work closely with the main devs, so I don't think they are conflicting. I personally don't think that referring to YouTube or MobyGames helps. Both are not reliable and both can be described as original research. I don't question if Asobo's role was huge or not, but I think that we should follow what reliable sources told us. Neither of us cross 3RR and I don't think it is fair for you to say I am engaging in an edit war. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, yet I think, given that Asobo had seemingly a major role in the game, even if not presented as such, we should incorporate it somehow. Asobo seems to stand out from other minor developing studios, such as One Bit Labs and Panic Button, both of which are minorly credited in the game's credits, but not mentioned anywhere in sources. So is Asobo a "major minor" studio?
 * Furthermore, I was previously concerned regarding Comcept's role, and the MCV source you linked cearly says "Yet when it comes to the grunt work of actually making the game fun and perform well, that's all Armature, [...]", which does not mention Comcept in any way but the preceding statement "The way the work breaks down is that Comcept is really in charge of story, setting and characters", so just chracter design and no development? (This is pretty much the reverse case of Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, where we exclude ArtPlay, founded by the game's conceptor and producer, because it is too minor; Comcept with 6 people credited in the game would have similar attributes.) Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would even mention a support studio like One Bit Labs if its role in the game's development is too minor. I don't mind removing Comcept from the infobox if there was a consensus from a discussion in another article. I think infobox template had a quite clear guideline that only lead dev should be mentioned, so if it is a "major minor" studio it should not be listed. I think mentioning Asobo's role in both the lead (which shows its signifiance already as most co-devs don't get this treatment) and the development section is good enough. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think this is a special case really. While Asobo is a major minor studio, Comcept is a minor major studio. Checking the cover, truly only Compect and Armature are present, but Asobo appears in the splashs. We should likely reach on consensus for this one, but I'll comment Asobo out as long as that is. Might as well put an efn for it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable, pubished sources say, not original research. If you're required to go through a game's credits just to find out a studio's input on a game, then information on that studio's involvement is likely not noteworthy enough to be included in the article, let alone the infobox. Verifiability > Correctness. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)