Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 5

{Press |author = Josh Fjelstad |title = The 100 Longest Entries On Wikipedia |org = BuzzFeed |url = http://www.buzzfeed.com/fjelstud/the-100-longest-entries-on-wikipedia#.opb19rX7o |date = 2011-06-22 |accessdate = 2014-12-13}}

Merger discussion
I suggest merging History of massively multiplayer online games into here. SharkD  Talk  19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) OK, I went ahead and closed the merger request since there was no support. SharkD  Talk  20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Scope is not compatible; not all MMOGs are RPGs. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As it says, the online persistent RPG genre has 30-years of history behind it, and I'm sure more notable things will be added as years go by. The article is kind of list-y right now, but it could be pretty comprehensive and interesting with more research. &mdash;Sebquantic (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for inexact scope. If there's a history of MMORPGs out there merge that. But MMOGs in general have too many other facts that just couldn't fit here. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Golden Age" for PC RPGs, too
According to Matt Barton at Gamasutra, PC RPGs had their own "Golden Age" as well. Might be worth mentioning. SharkD  Talk  06:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a whole bunch of citations from Barton's excellent series of articles on CRPGs. SharkD   Talk  10:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that using primary one source to make an entire section for "golden age" is appropriate. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe... I think he's a pretty good source, though. I've found a few factual errors, but they were later corrected in his book. SharkD   Talk  04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Omissions
The The Bard's Tale series is notably missing. Barton also spends a lot of time talking about Telengard, Temple of Apshai, etc. SharkD   Talk  12:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bard's Tale would fit pretty well in the existing Interplay section, since the company sort of bridges the Golden and Platinum eras. SharkD   Talk  12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned The Bard's Tale, and created a section dedicated to Diablo, which I felt was sorely missing. SharkD  Talk  20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The section on the Ultima and Wizardry series is still pretty short. I'll see if I can flesh them out a bit more. SharkD  Talk  00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also want to mention early text-based RPGs, somewhere before the "These were followed by..." bit in the mainframe section. SharkD   Talk  05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The "consoles" section probably needs a mention of the Xbox and Xbox 360 as well. SharkD  Talk  05:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the sections on Ultima, Wizardry and Dungeon Master; and mentioned Eye of the Beholder, Wizard's Crown and Betrayal at Krondor. SharkD  Talk  04:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "consoles" section really needs to be updated with stuff from after 2000. SharkD  Talk  05:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, this section could benefit from a special section about tactical RPGs, as they're not really mentioned anywhere. SharkD   Talk  06:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Betrayal at Krondor could also use a bit more mention. Maybe a "Miscellaneous games of the 1990s" section. SharkD  Talk  05:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a section for Sierra Entertainment games like Betrayal at Krondor and Quest for Glory. SharkD   Talk  01:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fable should also probably be discussed at greater length, and maybe Dungeon Siege. SharkD  Talk  00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cultural differences
The items i removed are all justified.
 * 1) - the article in question no longer exists and linking to a redirect is not appropriate when its known to be redirected.
 * 2) - The sources I removed were being used in violation of WP:SYNTH as they purported to use one example of a western RPG, namely Oblivion, to give a generalization on all western RPGs.
 * 3) - the one I marked with the dubious tag is because I do not believe the latter half of that statement is directly supported by the source. However, as there is a large body of text and the source is used on Role-playing video game, I wanted a chance to discuss it. I purposely placed a similar request tag on it previous which was ignored.
 * 4) - JRPG was removed as it was used since the source did not use that term.
 * 5) - other edits were done in order to limit synthesis. 陣  内 Jinnai 16:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cite a policy or something that says that it's not appropriate to link to a redirect when the redirect leads to the relevant article section (in this case Role-playing video game) that readers should be going to for further information.
 * The article discusses Western titles in general and the Xbox specifically, including Mass Effect and BioShock. The article is pretty clear in portraying localized Western games as somewhat of a "novelty".
 * I hadn't really looked at the part you marked "dubious", but I just found a source from Monday that mentions some of these things. As for the original cite, it certainly discusses "brighter graphics" and "younger characters" - but you're right in that it doesn't discuss scripted linear storylines.
 * The abbreviation JRPG is supported by the second citation I added. Oops, I was wrong.
 * Please be more specific, as we can't know what you mean if you never discuss it. SharkD   Talk  07:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the source specifically mentions "console RPGs" on the second page of the article. Quote "A devoted gamer could make a decent case for either of these Atari titles founding the RPG genre [on console systems]; nevertheless, there's no denying that Dragon Quest was the primary catalyst for the Japanese console RPG industry. And Japan is where the vast majority of console RPGs come from, to this day." Please check the sources more carefully next time!

Also, in this change you altered the meaning of the sentence that followed such that it indicated that all the systems were not showing market dominance in Japan, whereas that is only the case for the Xbox and Xbox360 according to the source that is cited.

Finally, in this edit you removed a further template link that linked to a relevant section of another article. I'm not sure what you meant by calling it a "nonexistent article", but it would have been more helpful to instead replace the redirected link with a direct link! Please try and be more constructive with your edits, as they currently don't seem to be! SharkD  Talk  22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard to the first the first one, if it is not linked on that page, it needs to be noted in the citation that it is using info from other pages.
 * In regard to the second one, I apologize as that wasn't my intent.
 * On the third, it is my point that there should not be any redirect here. If anything, it should be on the main article role-playing video games directed to here. This is spinoff of role-playing video game, not the otherway around and thus it should not have a further linking back to what should be a less detailed summary on the main article. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding #3, I think that the two sections need to be synchronized better such that either a) they contain the same content; or b) one of the two locations contains detailed info, and the other a summary. But which ones? SharkD   Talk  01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, syncronization would just make things more complicated to maintain. I've already stated which one I think should be the summary and why. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I'll try and incorporate more content into this article. SharkD   Talk  01:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I incorporated the stuff from the other article, so I suppose you could turn the section in Role-playing video game into a stub. SharkD   Talk  04:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Joynt
Joynt was found to be an unreliable source for knowledge on the various types of role-playing video games at Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game and futher agreed up at Talk:Role-playing video game. Please do not re-add him. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All I could find was one comment to this effect added by yourself in Talk:Role-playing video game. Could you please link to instances where other people besides yourself have also voiced a concern? SharkD   Talk  21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any references to Joynt in the AFD you mentioned. The only mention of him at the talk page is you saying so. Regardless of his "systemic bias", his opinion on the subject is as good as any other journalist's, especially published in a reliable source. I read the article in question and it doesn't look like it makes any controversial claims and serves as a nice source for that sentence. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the controversy. This article has rapidly improved due to SharkD's work. I still take some issue with how it is laid out but it looks like that started much sooner. Hopefully we can find a consensus on this issue and continue to improve this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point though - his opinion isn't as good as any other journalist. His views have been shown to have systemic bias and like every RS out there we don't just slap it on an article and say it cannot ever be wrong. In addition another editor has raised on the other page a question about whether any journalist should be used for this issue. That line does have some relevance that this is something that requires scholarly references or references from notable members within the industry - ie not journalists. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be issue? There's no controversy, the statement is fine, the source is fine. If you really disagree with Joynt's statement and you can bring secondary sources with alternate opinions, then this can be represented in the article. Can you provide a link to the "other page" as I'm curious about this source discrimination. Marasmusine (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ultima III as First Modern CRPG
Under the first paragraph of "Modern Personal Computers", the wiki entry states, "Many consider Ultima III to be the first modern CRPG", but the Barton article cited doesn't actually appear to say or imply that. Barton mentions that Ultima III was the first in the series to be wildly successful in Japan (just as the series already was in the US), and that many games there borrowed from it (as Western companies had been for two prior games), but that doesn't mean that it's considered "the first modern CRPG", let alone considered that way "by many" -- I've read a lot about the Ultima games in history, but have never seen that claim before.

The Wikipedia entry also doesn't explain what distinguishes a modern CRPG from prior ones, or what traits Ultima III had to give it that title over other Ultimas or CRPGs. If you need more concrete quotes to verify that it was the first to have certain elements, the folks over at the huge Ultima wiki The Editable Codex could likely offer sources of all kinds if you ask, or you could probably find them in the sources they cited.

If you're interested in CRPG history, you might look into the book Dungeons and Dreamers by Brad King and John Borland; it's the best title I've found on the topic by far. Matt Barton is a decent writer, but he has an odd habit of barely skimming some prominent games/series and inflating others. —☥ Xyzzy Avatar ☥ 09:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzzyavatar (talk • contribs)


 * The specific quote is, "Rounding out this era are The Sword of Fargoal, released in 1983 by Epyx, and Ultima III, a game that many CRPG enthusiasts cite as the first modern CRPG." Does that help?
 * I'm not sure I could easily define what a "modern" RPG is either. I would think that some of the traits are those that emerged with modern personal computers, such as an intuitive, easy to use interface, professional looking graphics, sound, saving to disk, maybe mouse input, etc. Other things might include well-developed mechanics, a coherent and entertaining plot, quality presentation, etc. None of which is sourced of course. Do you have other ideas? I might re-read the articles to see whether the topic is discussed and I just happened to miss it the first time.
 * I would take a look at the book you linked to. However, I'm short on cash right now, and I doubt my local public library has a copy. And only chapter 1 is available for free on the web site. But thanks for suggesting it. I sure would like to read it. SharkD   Talk  16:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Woot! My local library does, in fact have a copy. I just placed a hold request on it, and should be getting it sometime within the next week or so. SharkD   Talk  17:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the first few chapters, and while it does go into considerable detail about the development of Ultima and its sequels (I used the book to update the article on Akalabeth for instance), there's not really much that's relevant to the genre specifically. Whatever comparisons the author makes between Ultima and other games is more in the context of the entire video game industry as a whole. And they tend to be kind of loose and vague for that matter. The book does mention that Ultima III was revolutionary in the way it used writing inside a video game, where games previously had only a minimal narrative and plot at best. Maybe there will be more of relevance in the later chapters. SharkD   Talk  03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I finished the book and other than Ultima and Akalabeth it discusses virtually no other single-player RPGs barring Diablo. Instead it discusses things like id Software and Doom, Ultima Online and a some other early MMOs, and a few trends general to gaming. SharkD   Talk  14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Organization / Table of Contents
This article has really come a long way and I want to give a special thanks to User:SharkD for spearheading that. But one thing that's bugging me is that the article's layout was flawed right from the start. (Not SharkD's fault. The headings are an artifact of a few mergers that went into this article.) The unique organization of history seems like WP:Original Research, giving undue emphasis to some parts of history. This happens to be one of the few history articles I can see that is completely unchronological. That probably comes from two problems:


 * 1) Organizing by developer (Interplay? Bethesda? A whole section just for Diablo?)
 * 2) Organizing by type (This is easier to fit into the chronology, since online RPGs are more recent, and the console-stream lasted about two generations, from Dragon Quest I to Final Fantasy VII)

I am not sure if this is controversial. It shouldn't be since it really is just a question of trying to get more chronological. But if need be we can get a few more people involved in this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I kind of disagree with what you're saying. The games are in mostly chronological order. They are in the order of (for PC games): mainframe games > "Golden Era" games of the 1980s > Interplay, which straddles the "Golden Era" and the late 1990s > the Diablo series, which straddles the late 1990s and early 2000s > the New Millenium (in general) > and Bethesda, whose recent blockbuster titles are given greatest coverage. If readers are confused regarding the dates, they can just look inside the parentheses (19xx) next to each game. As for the console titles, I think they should be handled separately, as there was not a lot of cross-pollination outside of Ultima III, and most sources do as well. My 2 cents. SharkD   Talk  03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree though that Diablo is given undue weight. There are several other video games that can be cited that have had at least that much impact, if not more. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that Diablo is given undue weight. For instance, it's the best selling RPG series for the PC and arguably ushered in an entire sub-genre by itself. SharkD   Talk  06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Diablo part seems like the worst undue weight and bugs me the most. If nobody else mentions the other problems I can live with them. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Diablo gets a bit more puffery than is warranted. I would support efforts to get more chronological in general as well. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow page load times
It's taking over 30 seconds for the article to load in my browser as of late. Anyone else having these problems? SharkD  Talk  19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that long. I'd look to see if there's some excess coding you could clean up. It's at 141k which is close to the 150k they suggest splitting at. Might also remove any long outstanding uncited statements. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that will have much of an effect, seriously? SharkD   Talk  01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting pretty close to 250K now. SharkD  Talk  23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominate as GA
Anyone else want to nominate this article as/to GA status? I think it is in a good enough state with all the content and sources. SharkD  Talk  04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

splitting
The artilce has gotten well beyond the point that it needs to be split. It's over 200k now. However, I'm not sure how we should go about doing this. Splitting the histories by console/computer is liable to create the same conflict that computer RPG/Console RPG terminology did. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can barely edit the article in my browser it's so huge. SharkD   Talk  22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article into separate console and computer RPG articles makes the most sense to me. That's how they were before they were merged last year. Splitting them into two Western/Eastern RPG articles would be OK too. We wouldn't necessarily have to give up having a "main" article serving as a jumping-off point for the two new articles. We really could have all three. SharkD   Talk  22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's no objection, I will proceed with this later this week. SharkD   Talk  07:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I had in mind:
 * Main article: User:SharkD/Sandbox/Role-playing video game
 * History article #1: User:SharkD/Sandbox/History of Eastern role-playing video games
 * History article #2: User:SharkD/Sandbox/History of Western role-playing video games
 * The articles are now roughly of equal size. SharkD   Talk  07:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Images
I think that the number of images is very excessive. I don't think I've ever seen 14 images in one article that were fair use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first image is of an open source video game, so it doesn't fall under fair use. The image of Sephiroth could maybe be replaced with this one. That leaves twelve. SharkD   Talk  22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think most editors' habits regarding non-free images are a bit strict. I think if the image demonstrates something useful to the article it should stay. But that's just me. SharkD   Talk  15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gamasutra blog article about RPG controversy
Here's a blog article at Gamasutra regarding RPGs and the controversy surrounding them. I haven't read the whole thing yet. SharkD  Talk  22:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It goes into quite a lot of detail regarding the (shared or not) mechanics of RPGs. Definitely a good read! SharkD   Talk  22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Some talk here about the future direction of RPGs--specifically the increasing expectations viz graphical quality as well as voice overs. SharkD  Talk  00:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

More about voice acting, and how they might contribute to games being "dumbed-down" viz previous titles due to the cost of including them in a game. SharkD  Talk  00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This article posits that the reason early computer RPGs were so "hardcore" viz difficulty was because the early pen-and-paper role-playing games they were based around were similarly hardcore. I.e. they were difficult, and the characters players would create rarely survived past the first few levels. SharkD  Talk  21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This author states that computer RPGs were relatively unknown during the 80s because few people owned computers at the time, and that console RPGs at the time had an "easier-to-digest level of entry". SharkD  Talk  20:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)