Talk:Stealth game

Social Stealth
I removed "In 2007, Assassin's Creed introduced a social element to the stealth game, where the player is able to hide among a crowd of civilians if they take care to blend in." From the article, because social stealth was introduced in Hitman: Codename 47, long before Assassins Creed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.38.31 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting my edit. Really, it's not true and shouldn't be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.38.31 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a statement supported by a reference to a reliable source. Original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not valid reasons to remove it. bridies (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis in MGS
Hideo Kojima has said many times, especially in the development of Metal Gear Solid, that the Metal Gear games rely more on stealth than on fighting. That's why there called Tactical Espionage Action games, with the emphasis on the Espionage. In fact, it's possible to get through both MGS games without fighting the enemy and just sneaking around and completing your objectives, with the exception of the staged fights between the bosses.

First stealth game?
I'm not sure, but would the original Castle Wolfenstein be considered the first Stealth-based game? I can't think of any others that pre-date it. --Paul Soth 04:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is true - the History text has been updated to reflect this fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.251.221 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A list of games?
would it be a good idea to include a list of stealth based games, or should that be a completely new page? you could break them down into a chronological list or a list of different games with their sequels and such. Metal Gear Solid is just the first, and now there are many different stealth based games.

Examples:
 * Tom Clancey's Splinter Cell Series
 * Splinter cell
 * Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow
 * Splinter Cell Chaos Theory
 * Splinter Cell Double Agent


 * Metal Gear Series
 * Metal Gear Solid
 * Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
 * Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
 * Syphon Filter series
 * Syphon Filter
 * Syphon Filter 2
 * Syphon Flter 3
 * Syphon Filter Omega Strain
 * Stolen
 * Cold War
 * Manhunt

and so on...

--:Travlr23 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The best place for that would be List of computer and video games by genre. There's also a Category:Stealth computer games (though it should probably be named "Stealth-based games").   --Mrwojo 23:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ISTR something like Escape from Colditz (?) on Amiga which sounds a lot like something fitting the description. Not a first person sneaker, but certainly a stealth game of a sort.

What is the oldest one? Pacman? :)

---

It wouldn't hurt to add some major titles such as GTA:SA and Fahrenheit / Indigo Prophecy that have missions (or chapters) based solely on stealth elements. Fahrenheit actually borrows the concept directly from MGS.

---

>>What is the oldest one? Pacman? :)

Ha ha, the legacy of Pacman still lives on - in MGS3 the player has the same view as in Pacman. The enemies however have the 1st person view.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy; Thief has Splinter Cell well and truly beaten on using light to hide and a detailed environment. MuJoCh 06:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And so I changed it. Also got rid of that bit about Splinter Cell coming up with 'double agent' play or whatever.  From what little I can find there's nothing in the game along those lines that the Hitman series hasn't done already. MuJoCh 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

–––

Wouldn't Death to spies 1 & 2 be a good choice to add to the article. They both add the use of chloroform and heavily relies on stealth, both by using stolen uniforms, etc. I think it could stand on the same kind of tactical espionage. What are your thoughts? Monorio1 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commandos?
No mention whatsoever of the Commandos series? They are definately stealth-based, and original because they use teamplay instead of a single first-perspective character.

It is an extreme disservice not to include the Commando's titles. Not only did you have to use stealth but team stealth and cerebral use of all team members in order to accomplish a mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.222.7 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BK ?
Hey, could the Burger King game " Sneak King" Be considered a stealth based game? It has nothing to do with killing people, rather it is a repetive series of delivering Burger King food to random people but it still requires an element of Stealth, as you must come from behind people to suprise them or hide in various objects like boxes and porta- potties.

-Steve

It wouldn't make any sense to include it as a major title or series, but it definitely deserves a place on the list of other stealth games, and it looks like somebody already added it anyway.

Ubersuntzu 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Splinter Cell / Thievery
I'm a Thievery developer but it should be noted that Thievery had a cooperative multiplayer mode as well, before Splinter Cell. I'll leave the article as-is, but I just thought I'd note it.

-oRGy

Sorry, I'm the guy that wrote most of the explanations on the major series list. I'm a bit embarrassed to say I'd completely forgotten about Thievery as I've never played the mod myself and have only seen a few references to it over the years. Anyway, I've already changed the "first stealth co-op" listing to Tenchu: WoH a while back since it came out before Chaos Theory, but I'll add that it's the first commercial game to include it.

Ubersuntzu 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's a link to the mod's page for anyone that's out of the loop.

Thievery UT

Ubersuntzu 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Drakan
I added the Drakan games to the list. There was quite a lot of stealth in this highly underrated gem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.22.5 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

what a joke
there are tons of references and info on mgs but almost none on thief. a lot of it feels like fanboyism and what little info there is of thief proves what an essential game it truly was to the stealth genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.211.229 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Thief should be in the list. It was one of the earliest stealth games. Endlessmug (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. Too much Metal Gear, while MGS isn't as stealthy as Thief...

What about Hitman
Everyone has been talking about Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell & Thief Series, but what about the Hitman Series? --The Dark Knight-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.53.195 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Ah and the best if i might add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.225.23 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List removal
Why was this done? I thought it was a very useful list. Jmj713 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Airborne Ranger
The Microprose's Commodore 64 1987 game Airborne Ranger had many missions that required stealth.

taking this article to the next level
This article is actually in pretty decent shape, after a few solid hours of work. There's an adequate summary of the gameplay, and the history section is coming along. Here are a few things it needs to get to the next level:


 * A "definition" section, which will be hard to find references for.
 * Within the definition section, it may be helpful to offer a paragraph or two about stealth gameplay outside the genre. I'm sure I can find a source for this.
 * Within the gameplay section, source the remaining statements, and expand where possible.
 * Reference the early stealth game stuff, mainly focusing on Return to Castle Wolfenstein and the Metal Gear series.
 * Translate the remaining "important games" list into the history section.
 * Clean up the list in general, since this is meant to be a summary of stealth games rather than a complete list of games.

Probably the most helpful thing that can happen would be if this source turned out to be reliable. I asked a question here, and hopefully it will work out. Otherwise, we'll have to hope for a reliable source that offers as much useful information. Randomran (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Important games and major series section
Someone reverted my deletion of the Important games and major series section here and I want to know, should it be kept on the article? There's no references to it. So it shouldn't be in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, we remove these kinds of lists from genre articles. Randomran (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not remove but move to a separate article. Jmj713 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is pretty indiscriminate too. "Games with stealth in it" is pretty vague, and has led to a lot of questionable titles being added. Personally I'd just scrap the whole thing, because it fails WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed because it's not sourced and it's a big embedded list, which is discouraged. If a game is important to the history of the genre, someone will have said so and it can be mentioned in the prose. If not, it doesn't need to be here. There's already a "stealth video games" category for taking care of this stuff. bridies (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion needed
This was rated a good article, but there's still lots of missing pieces. The set up and pre-1998 information is adequate (but could possibly benefit from more exposition), but the post-1998 information, apart from too much focus on Metal Gear, is skimpy at best. Thief and Splinter Cell, two of the genre's most representative game series are mentioned very briefly in passing, glossed over as afterthoughts. Much more information needs to be added regarding them, as well as the games in the Hitman series, another important entry in the stealth genre, and again mentioned very briefly here. Additionally, there's very little information about the more recent games and the few that are mentioned are again mentioned in passing without much substance. There have been very good stealth games released in recent years that are very much representative of the genre (such as The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and Velvet Assassin for instance), as well as the upcoming games like The Saboteur and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Jmj713 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a general overview of the genre; all the respective games have articles in which they are discussed in-depth. If you have more to add then do so, with sources. bridies (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Commandos (series) included here? 18.60.2.34 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The section Establishing a genre: 1998–today needs definite expansion. First of all, since we have a section called Early stealth games, going from 1981 to 1994, we can't just lump everything else into an "establishing" section, because it needs to establish something, like today's stealth games. Perhaps the entire History section needs restructuring. First of all, we should keep the dates off. We can keep the first section as is, then split off the second into two, Establishing a genre and Modern stealth games. The "establishing" section should focus on the late-1990s/early-2000s games like Thief, Splinter Cell, and Hitman - perhaps the three biggest stealth series of the genre at the time, which really did establish stealth as an actual genre of video games. The third section should focus on everything else, but we currently don't have anything this beyond a single mention of Assassin's Creed. There should be more mention of stealth elements being used in more and more games which are not stealth games by themselves. Even all-out action titles like the recent two Modern Warfare games contains elements of pure stealth. Jmj713 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article direction.
The article looks good, but it focuses directly on stealth games, which proves a problem. Stealth is an element found in a lot of games, not all of which are considered stealth games. Is there any way we can start to direct this article towards stealth as a gaming element, instead of a genre? Oblivion, for example, can be just as much as a stealth game as the next, but nobody would label it as such. Also, there's no room to include information on 'stealth missions', in its current format.Scoundr3l (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the video game genre "stealth game". bridies (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's exactly what I just said, so let me elaborate on the problem:
 * A year before the first Metal Gear launched, a lesser-known game was released called Infiltrator. Infiltrator featured many of the same stealth elements as Metal Gear, and some extras (like knock-out gas). However, Infiltrator was also a helicopter simulator, so it doesn't belong on this article, in spite of the fact that it was a pioneer of stealth gaming.
 * MMORPGs have always included stealth elements that, parallel to true 'stealth games', have been evolving over time. For obvious reasons, they don't belong on this article.
 * Clock tower and Beyond Good & Evil both fit in this article, based on the definition offered, but are a survival horror and action-adventure game, respectively.
 * Rather than create a new article that re-hashes a lot of the same information, I think this article could be expanded to simply include the stealth element of gaming. It would obviously still include information about 'stealth games' like Tenchu, Thief, and Splinter Cell but wouldn't restrict topics that don't fall under that narrow umbrella.Scoundr3l (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if a particular game is influential or successful and contains "stealth elements", then it could be added as long as the statements are supported by sources. Clock Tower and Beyond Good & Evil are actually mentioned in a couple of the sources I used, I think, but there wasn't much information so I left them out. bridies (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to know where your interests lie, Bridie, because it seems to me that it doesn't have anything to do with information. You stormed through my edits, all of which contained valid information from sources at least as reliable as the GamesRadar article that's referenced 9 times, the GameSpot article referenced 5 times, or a review from Slashdot. So what's the story? Am I going to waste my time contributing to this article just for you to play Sheriff with it? If you have a legitimate problem with my well-intentioned additions, you can add a citation tag or bring it to the discussions, but you don't see me stomping through your article tearing out everything that isn't cited by a peer-reviewed thesis paper. Are we going to collaborate or not? Scoundr3l (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sources fail WP:RS. MobyGames and Wikia are not reliable sources. GameSpot and GamesRadar are respected publications by noted publishers (see here for example). At least one sentence didn't have a source at all. This is a GA and thus cannot have unsourced content, so the no-deadline appeal isn't applicable here. I removed the Slashdot reference, which I hadn't noticed before. bridies (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're on the topic of policies, let's talk about 'focus on the content'. Did you look at what you were removing? You removed a brief mention that the game Doom contains invisibility. Did you have a dispute with that fact or just the source? Did you try improving it before you removed it? And while you're at it, take a look at the last three articles to be considered GA- each of which is loaded with un-sourced sentences. I think perhaps you're letting the GA rating get in the way of what's best for the article. If it gets to the point where you're instantly removing valid information instead of working towards reinforcing that information, it may be time to take a step back and re-examine what it means to be an 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'.Scoundr3l (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not loaded with unsourced statements at all (note: one could take several sentences from one source and provide a citation at the end of those several sentences). The Harry Potter book has a descriptive plot summary taken from the primary source without reference to secondary sources, which is fine within an article about that book. The mention of invisibility within Doom is irrelevant in any case without a reliable source stating why it is worthy of note within the context of "stealth game" or at a push "stealth gameplay" or "elements" or whatever. I instantly removed unsourced content, not "valid information" (see WP:V); I'm not obliged to look for sources for your assertions and in any case since I've spent a fair bit of time contributing to this article I think I have a decent idea of what is and isn't covered in reliable secondary research. bridies (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you starting cutting up my changes, it explained why the information is relevant. You chose to include AvP, a shooter than contains invisibility. Rather than throw it out as irrelevant in the context of a stealth game, I included it along with an earlier examples and explained how it relates to stealth gaming. You see, when someone takes the time to add information to an article, an editor might try to make that information more relevant instead of cutting it out because they disagree with it. It's all explained here: Revert only when necessary. I don't think AvP belongs here, but that's ok with me because this article belongs to everyone. I appreciate how much you want to keep this article nice, even though I think you're misguided. 'GA' is a reward to congratulate people like you and me for contributing to a great article, it isn't a 'keep off the grass' sign meant to prevent people from contributing. Enjoy your article. Scoundr3l (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just read through WP:V,WP:OR and WP:RS. bridies (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt the drama, guys, but I have a question. How come Harry Potter is allowed to reference the primary source but we need a secondary source to prove doom has invisibility? Seems unfair to video gamesThadeuss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
 * One wouldn't need a secondary source to say that Doom has invisibility, in an article about Doom. But mentioning that Doom has invisibility in article about the history of a genre implies that it's somehow important to the history, which would need a secondary source. bridies (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts
re this edit and similar. The article in question does not make any mention of stealth games, or place whatever RPG in the context of the genre, let alone say why it is important to the genre. Taking a mention of "stealth" being used in one level, and then stating the game contains "early stealth elements" or whatever is personal conjecture and not permitted; simply by making such a mention in the article one implies that it is somehow important or at least noteworthy and again that is not supported by the source. It's all largely moot anyway because once again this has been sourced to some random blog with no established reliability. bridies (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts 10.22
Since there is some sort of problem with my work on this article, I’ve itemized the changes to make it easy to explain exactly why a revert was necessary:

1)

Changed

“However, the genre was not popularized until 1998, with…”

to

“The genre was further popularized in 1998 with…”

--

If you have a source which states that the genre was not popular before 1998, please cite it.

2)

Changed

“Because the player can hide in the dark, light and shadow are important…”

to

“Because the player can often hide in the dark, light and shadow become important…”

--

The cited article itself states, “In most stealth games, the player hides in the shadows…” Not all, most. Please explain your problem with the new wording.

3)

Changed

“…such as when the player turns off the lights. Enemies typically have a line of sight which the player can avoid by hiding behind objects or staying in the shadows, and enemies will react if the player accidentally touches them.

to

“…such as when the player turns off the lights or touches the enemy. Enemies typically have a line of sight which the player can avoid by hiding behind objects or staying in the shadows.”

--

In this case, you have a point. I re-wrote the sentences but I forgot to move the sources. My question then is: why did you revert my changes instead of fixing the minor over-sight?

4)

Moved

“In order for a game to include stealth gameplay, the knowledge of the artificial intelligence must be…”

to the beginning of the paragraph about AI.

--

Please explain your objection to this layout change.

In the future, I’d appreciate it if you would revert only when necessary, work to preserve content that I’ve worked to add, and remember that this article does not belong to you.

I was hoping to expand upon this article, but I'd like to know ahead of time if it's going to be a waste of time. Thanks.168.158.220.3 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left the latter points but reverted point one again. There are two cited sources to this effect in the article body; the whole structure of the article is based around 1998 being a turning point. As for your hyperbole and implicit accusations of bad faith: I did not remove anything, merely reverted your changing of sourced content (so WP:PRESERVE is moot). In any case, in practice I'm not at all obligated to go over your mistakes with a fine comb. bridies (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to point 2, I wouldn't have reverted had you pointed out that the source was misrepresented. In your edit summary you appeared to reference a primary source (i.e. to the effect of "MG doesn't have shadows") which I took to be OR. And with regards to point 4, my objection was simply that you changed the long standing status quo without explanation. bridies (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I'm not obligated to explain my changes to you. You reverted with almost no explanation and so I brought the issue to discussion to explain your mistake to you. I assume nothing about your motivations but your actions were hasty and disrespectful and I wanted to clear it up so that it doesn't happen again. Thank you for respecting my future changes and I look forward to collaborating with you. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as for change number 1, can you please cite which source states that the genre was not popular before 1998? I agree with the angle that 1998 was a turning point, but this sentence seems to be an opinion and should either be softened or tagged . But I'd rather just clear it up here. Thanks 168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 4 states: "once upon a time, stealth in games was rare. This began to change in 1998 with the arrival of Tenchu, Thief and Metal Gear Solid". The other is number 22, an offline source which I believe was added by User:Randomran. I didn't state that you were obligated to explain your changes, but that it is helpful to do so and that it is pretty rich for you to demand explanations where you did not give one yourself (why have you changed the status quo on "content arrangement")?), to insist that I sort out your errors for you and to accuse me of delusions of ownership on the basis of one revert. If you modify sourced content with no explanation, or an explanation that does not make sense, you cannot be surprised if you're reverted. bridies (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm awfully sorry that the burden of proof fell on your shoulders. I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia encourages bold edits (even those that go against the 'status quo') but it doesn't encourage bold reverts. You brought it upon yourself to try and 'sort out my errors' and seem to think that you can revert my edits simply because you didn't understand them. My edits were justified, your revert wasn't. Whether or not you can admit your mistake, I'm willing to move on. Here's to a civil relationship. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the the issue with the first edit. The offline resource states:

"Some would argue that the stealth-action genre was born in 1998 with Metal Gear Golid or Tenchu, both PSX titles. They, of course, would be wrong..."

I still don't see anything which favors "...not popularized until..." over "...further popularized in...". To say that the genre was not popularized until 1998 is obviously an opinion. I'll meet you half-way though. How about "was popularized in..."? 168.158.220.3 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still the source which says that stealth in games was rare before 1998. To say that the genre "was popularized in" is just as much an opinion as the previous version and in any case opinion is fine as long as it is attributable to a reliable source. Nevertheless I'm fine with either wording, the difference in semantics is negligible. Again, I would reiterate that the "status quo" equates to at least some level of consensus and that you have not justified why you changed the structure. I also don't understand why you've invoked WP:BURDEN. My revert was justified: it would nice if you either shut up about it or took it to whoever you think might care if you really believe it was a mistake, rather than than continuing to passive-aggressively imply I've violated the revert and civility policies. bridies (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for nothing. Now, if we may return to matters of content, I am fine with moving the statement on AI further up, so there remains only one matter of controversy: on reflection I don't feel your paraphrasing of the two sources misrepresents them any less than you felt the original did. I have quoted both sources verbatim in the lead and cited them as you originally asked for. This must surely settle the question unless you know of and can reference conflicting opinions. bridies (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, you took the higher route of arguing about it and telling me to shut up. The changes look good, I think we're done. Thanks :)72.208.249.62 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
"In 2007, Assassin's Creed introduced a social element to the stealth game..."

This has been challenged several times. I propose we resolve it here before it is edited further.

The counter-claim is that the Hitman (series) was responsible for the introduction of a social element to stealth games. This may just be an issue of wording.

Can someone find the quotation from the GameAxis source so that it can be verified?

Also, are there any sources to support the Hitman claim? I found this source which supports the social element of the original Hitman game, but nothing to claim that it was the first.168.158.220.3 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A "counter claim" or "challenge" is nothing without supporting sources. I have seen the GameAxis source before but cannot remember the quote verbatim (wasn't me who added it); but in any case the fact that one cannot find the quote online doesn't diminish the strength of the reference. Add relevant, sourced info regarding Hitman if you will, but not-sourced or original claims aren't a reason to add a "dubious" tag to a sourced statement. bridies (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the source. The quote is: "Like Metal Gear and Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed is a stealth game, though it handles the stealth mechanics in a totally different (and realistic) way. Dubbed 'Social Stealth'... [goes on to describe blending with crowds and such]". One could argue about whether "totally different" in the source or "introduced" in the article implies it being the first or not; I've changed the word "introduced" to "employed". The use of "dubbed" and quotation marks suggest to me that "social stealth" was a buzzword attached to this particular game. bridies (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the advice but I’m going to have to disagree. This is a textbook example of a disputed (dubious) statement: it’s obviously inaccurate, it’s difficult to verify, and it’s been challenged since at least December of last year. An offline source certainly doesn’t diminish the strength of the claim but it still requires verification, hence the and  tags. In this case, ‘dubious’ covers all of our bases by taking it directly to talk. Up until this point, the dispute has apparently been ignored and the article has been reverted but all it took was one minor change to settle the objections and make this a better article. Thanks for discussing and fixing the problem.168.158.220.3 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been no valid dispute or challenge up until this point and it was not "obviously" or indeed at all inaccurate. If I wanted to insist on the original wording pertinent to "social stealth" I'm sure I'd be successful as there's nothing to challenge that verbatim. "Verifiable" pertains to individual readers, not some process of double checking done by editors, but hey even if it were, it's been verified more than once before. It is certainly not a "textbook case" of WP:DISPUTE: it is not "unlikely information" (the worst charge that could be levelled at the claim is one of slight semantic ambiguity) and is/was supported by a reference; it is not "particularly difficult" to verify (the source can be read via Google); and it was not added by a user (that I'm pretty sure being User:Randomran) "known to write inaccurately on the topic". If you still want to argue protocol after the fact, again, do it on my talk page or some more appropriate venue, thanks bridies (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing left to discuss, as far as I'm concerned. The original wording was dubious, it was challenged by several editors and yet the article remained unchanged for almost a year. When someone finally requested verification it was discovered that, not surprisingly, the wording was inaccurate the whole time. In light of this fact, you still seem to be suggesting that I had no right to challenge the material because it was sourced. I know you know how Wikipedia policy works, so I'm not going to go back and forth quoting policies out of context. As long as you follow the protocols and make the necessary changes (as you did), you can be 'right' until a month full of Sundays168.158.220.3 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong and have ignored what I just said, again, but whatever. bridies (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

December reverts
Re. |this edit: by citing WP:STATUSQUO you are citing a policy against your edit. The status quo, the way the article has been for months, years, is not to include the contested information. As the policy states: "If you make a change (the addition of not-sourced information) which is good-faith reverted (that would be my revert), do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up." And yet again I will cite one of the fundamental policies: WP:V. Provide a source for this information, or leave it out. And again I will cite WP:WIAGA, spuriously dismiss it though you may, which states that GAs must provide the sources of all information. The addition of not-sourced content to the article jeopardises its GA status and thus should be removed. bridies (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you'd be right about that if we took it out of context by ignoring the first paragraph:


 * "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."


 * Letting the status quo reign isn't the problem. The problem is that the revert tore out information without any attempt to improve it, discuss it, or even allowing enough time to allow other editors to implement it. That's not Wikipedia policy and that's exactly why reverts are discouraged.


 * Edits don't have to be perfect and editors don't have to know Wikipedia policy to edit. Through collaboration, the information is improved over time and articles can reach GA or Featured status. There is no policy that states that GA status needs to be protected by tearing out un-sourced information on sight or reverting edits that aren't perfect. GA criteria are just that: criteria. If you don't want to help improve good-faith edits, please sit back and let someone else take a crack at it. But reverting the edits is destructive, disrupts other editors from improving the article, and discourages new editors by suggesting that their edits have to be approved before the status quo can be changed. And that's not policy. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not refuted anything I said. WP:STATUSQUO says that the status quo should be left in case of a content dispute; WP:V states that information must be verifiable; WP:WIAGA states that all content in GAs must be sourced (you have said NOTHING to refute this other than spuriously dismiss it with nonsensical rationales). Find a source, or leave the information out, and get off your soapbox. bridies (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be anything pertinent to Maniac Mansion and the stealth game genre (or stealth at all) to found via Google news, Scholar or the WP:VG's Google:RS tool. Maniac Mansion's Wiki article references a few sources and nothing about stealth. I doubt there is any research to demonstrate an importance of Maniac Mansion to the history of the genre. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but this is enough of a challenge to remove the info. bridies (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I be trying to refute what you've said? This isn't an argument, this is a discussion about Wikipedia policy. I understand and acknowledge that the status quo should reign after a revert, although you've ignored almost every policy regarding how and when to use a revert. I understand that sources require verification, but that says nothing about removing harmless material on sight. I also understand the criteria for GA status, and the reason I keep "spuriously dismissing" it is because it has nothing to do with the discussion. Even if we both overlooked your dubious use of the revert tool, you've still offered nothing to justify why the information cannot remain in the article until it's been improved. The burden of proof, once again, falls on your shoulders.168.158.220.3 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and before this comes up again, I should clarify that I'm not referring to the WP:Burden of proof policy but the actual concept of burden of proof. In other words, you have to justify why your revert was necessary as opposed to User:129.24.161.222 having to justify why his edit was necessary. There is a process for removing challenged material that involves, at the very least, giving enough time for it to be supported. That's why we have handy tools like inline tags. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not harmless material, but spurious, unverifiable content. I don't have time to start a talk page discussion every time someone adds such content because it happens all the time -often several times a day- across the various articles I watch and I am not obliged to give spurious content enough time to be supported when it likely cannot. The GA criteria is relevant to the discussion: this is a good article and you are supporting the addition of material which violates that criteria and jeopardises its status. How can that not be relevant? Yet again you are waffling over protocol when the actual content issue is trivial. bridies (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And no, User:129.24.161.222 has to justify why his edit was necessary. That is where the burden of proof lies per policy. Reverting a good faith edit with the justification of "provide a source" as shorthand for "I have spent a fair amount of time researching this genre, other genres and old video games in general and this looks suspect to me" is acceptable. bridies (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What we have here is a Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and it begins every time you revert something that otherwise could have just been improved. There is no policy which supports removing content that doesn't meet GA criteria, on sight. In fact, there are numerous policies against these kinds of reverts: WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, and almost the entire essay on Revert. I think we'd both be happier if we didn't have to keep coming to discussion over this article, but it's bound to happen if you're using revert as a first resort against good-faith edits that need improvement.168.158.220.3 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't need improvement, it needed removed. Again, if you think I violated policy, take it somewhere relevant. bridies (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but this isn't your personal encyclopedia. Perhaps you could use all of your research to write a book, then you'll have full control over the information and we'll all have a new source. In the mean time, as long as you are editing a collaborative article, you're going to have to follow certain policies that allow us all to work together. If you act disruptively towards other people trying to edit this article, you can expect them to take it here (the relevant somewhere you were suggesting). In fact, it looks like the past five discussion topics on this article have all been in regards to your actions. Not my place to judge, but since you don't have a lot of time for discussions, perhaps you could consider a change in tactics.168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have now written several paragraphs without at all commenting on the disputed content. I'm not "changing tactics" and I'm finished with this "discussion". bridies (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The genre's best selling game as of 2011 was Assassin's Creed II with over 8 million copies sold.
Just changing an "as of" tag into the current date, without giving any references, is not sufficient (plus, the way it is phrased, it is easy to misread as "the best selling game of 2011"). The references are from 2010, so they cannot be referring to 2011. In addition, all the references do is tell us the number of copies sold. It is not possible to conclude from that that AC2 is the highest selling game without knowing the sales of the other games. Perhaps there is a list of best-selling games, and AC2 is higher on the list than the other Stealth games mentioned in the article. Then we should link to that. Not sure if it would count as Original Research, though. Nczempin (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is actually an update to a previous statistic which stated that MGS was the best selling game. It's obviously a simple calculation that 8 million is higher than the previous figure given, but this is a sentence that will always require compiled information. It's on the fence, but it's not considered OR, it's just comparing facts. Perhaps the sentence could be re-worded and re-dated to 2010. Until more publications are made on the Stealth genre, though, this may always require compilation. :( 68.3.119.83 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * note that the reference dates from early 2010, but it has been accessed in September 2010. Just to remind ourselves: We have two separate claims/facts that need references: a) the number of units sold (and this we have, albeit from almost a year ago), and b) that this number makes the game number one within the genre. Nczempin (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, the date was an oversight on my part. I've also since changed the wording to "one of the best selling games" because it's always going to be almost impossible to verify that any given game is THE best. How's that work? 68.3.119.83 (talk)
 * The Wikipedia list of Best-selling video games splits everything into platforms, but we do have a list of best-selling video game franchises, which is cross-platform. In the second list, MG (the franchise) beats AC and SC, which have around 19 million each. Perhaps we should use the franchise list? Or perhaps we should not mention the "highest selling" stealth game at all; with all these decisions of what to base it on, it smells too much of OR to me. Plus, you correctly mention that we would have to keep updating the current contender. Nczempin (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stealth game is a genre/A stealth game is a type of video game
I introduced the second phrase because it sounds much better language-wise. However, when checking with at least one other genre page, I reverted to the original, for consistency. Perhaps the other genre pages should be changed, too. We don't say "Science-Fiction movie is a movie genre" either, so why should we do something like it in a video game genre? Are they equivalent, should they be treated equivalently? Is the genre "Stealth" or "Stealth game" (perhaps the article should be called "stealth (video games)", then it would feel more natural to include more on stealth elements in other (significant) games)? What about a stealth game with aliens, what's the genre? Nczempin (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, what an unfortunate example. Looking at the "science fiction film" article, it reads:

Science fiction film is a film genre that... But yes, it's horrendous wording, in my opinion. I think the latter cases should be re-worded rather than the former. More to the point, however, I think "stealth (video games)" is a long over-due change needed to this page given that stealth is an element found in many genres. All for it. 68.3.119.83 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SF film, ouch. :-) Nczempin (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Section break
I have been asked to explain my revert to the original wording with the addition of a determiner, which I assumed was the complaint regarding language. Since Nczempin has said that even the original wording is preferable to "The stealth game...", it would appear not. I then thought the problem must be the use of "game" twice in one sentence, but "Stealth game is a type of video game..." also does this. Would anyone care to specify the actual problem? The assertion that the original was "horrendous wording" is spurious hyperbole in my opinion, and the use of "genre" is preferable to any suggested alternative. The first sentence should if at all possible define the subject, which "type" does not. PlayStation games, Casual games, Freeware games, MMO games, turn-based games might all be said to be "types of games" and are not very closely related concepts. More importantly there is plenty of sourced justification for defining or describing "stealth game" as a more specific "genre". Also, from checking the research I believe the genre is more commonly called "stealth game" than anything else. Simple "Stealth" also occurs (as do other terms e.g. stealth-action) but the article cannot be called "Stealth" for disambiguation reasons and "stealth game" is preferable to something like "Stealth (video game genre)". Anyway, looking through some of the first cited sources, especially at those which focus on stealth games generally or classic games: In addition to all that, I'm not sure the suggested change really makes sense. Writing "A stealth game is..." implies that the article discusses an individual unit when in fact it discusses a whole abstract concept. If one searches for "Communist" one is redirected to Communism, articles on people state "The Azerbaijanis..." or "The Italian people...", species articles state "The giant panda..." or "Sharks...". Film begins "A film is..." and novel begins "A novel is..." (though it used to say "The novel...") but these are as much physical concepts as abstract ones. Nczempin already pointed to Science fiction film, and Science fiction states: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction". Satire states "Satire is...", Romance (genre) states "Romance is...", Horror fiction states "Horror fiction is...". bridies (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * says: "Sony's Siren is an unusual mix of two genres -- survival horror, in which you grapple with zombies, and stealth, in which you hide and sneak far more than you fight and shoot."
 * Second source states: "Some would argue that the stealth-action genre was born in 1998". This source can be read via Google Books.
 * says: "The Splinter Cell series are stealth games, in the genre pioneered by Kojima Hideo's Metal Gear series... Much of the stealth game genre involves observation and planning as well as trial and error."
 * gives the game's genre as "Action/Stealth" and mentions the "sneak-type genre".
 * talks at length about "stealth games" and calls the game in question "a classic of the genre".
 * Interviewer says: "Thief is the game that started the stealth genre".
 * The only plausible counter to this is to take something like, which is a general article on "stealth games", as a discussion of games of multiple genres which have "stealth elements". Nevertheless, in the prose the article describes heavily stealth-based games as "stealth games" (and calls them a genre at least once) while making comments such as "Known for being an action series, SF only really counts in the stealth department because there are a number of ways you can get the drop on enemies", "Mario’s wafer-thin N64 opus was more of a straight-up action/RPG", "This survival horror series pitting you and a camera against ghosts is less focused on stealth and more on adventure", "Siren mixes action, stealth and survival horror", and so on.
 * It's also been suggested that this article should be defined as simply discussing stealth as a gameplay element. The article clearly describes a genre; there are sources to justify an article about a "stealth game genre"; the article was peer-assessed in its format as a genre article; it conforms to the format used by other peer-assessed genre articles; though the article discusses games that blend genres, so do other genre articles as genre-blending is common. If there's an article to be written about stealth as a gameplay concept, this isn't it.
 * BTW I didn't ask you to explain your edit (it wasn't a revert), I (hopefully) asked you to participate in the discussion.
 * Wow, thanks for the detail, very useful. I haven't digested it all, please bear with me. First of all, it was me who objected to the original wording, but I then reverted myself because of the precedent in Action game (and of course saying "type" instead of "genre" (yet linking to genre) is just a workaround, not a solution. Then an IP came along and changed it back to my previous choice. I think for now we should go back to the original "Stealth game is a video game genre..." until we get a consensus that points to something else. It was possibly me who called it "horrendous", sorry for that (or was it the IP?). There is at least one other issue that you mention, that of stealth as a genre ("x is a stealth game") as opposed to stealth elements being used ("y has stealth elements, but it's not a stealth game"). I would like to keep the two discussions separate and only discuss the intro sentence issue here in this section (I noticed you deleted a section that seemed---somewhat unsuccessfully---to try to explain that distinction).
 * I don't mind the repetition of "game". In fact, I could live with something like "Stealth games belong to a video game genre where...", but then we don't have the "x is" pattern. I seem to remember that a more definition-like intro sentence is preferred.
 * So what exactly am I objecting to? Well, mostly: The genre is "Stealth", not "Stealth game". In the actual stealth games' articles we write e. g. "action-adventure/stealth" and not "action-adventure game/stealth game" in the infobox (and not just because it is shorter), just like we would write "Science fiction/Thriller" for a movie or book and not "Science Fiction movie/Thriller movie" or even "Science Fiction/Thriller movie". The majority of your quotes above reflect this (note the difference between talking about "stealth games" and "the stealth game genre". I wouldn't actually mind using "Stealth (video game genre)" as the title, but I'm not trying to change the title (not the least reason being that the way it is now seems to be consistent with the other genre articles). So "Stealth game is a genre" is not correct. "The Stealth game" even more so. A stealth game is a game that belongs to the genre of stealth, however.
 * I strongly disagree that "a something is..." implies discussing an individual unit, as you've shown yourself with the film and novel examples (and it is not relevant IMHO how physical or abstract the object of interest is). It is standard technique for defining a term/concept: "A line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two distinct end points and contains every point on the line between its end points." (interestingly enough, the article on Line (geometry) doesn't start with "A line is..."), "A frobbler is a klarku which has two montons".
 * Well, I hope that, for a starting point of the discussion, I have made myself understood in my attempt to explain what I don't like about "Stealth game is a video game genre..." (but I feel is currently the best choice out of those that have recently been used to start the article). Nczempin (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "Stealth game" is a genre term, at least some of the time. There is at least one explicit use of "stealth game genre" in the sources above and the expression "Stealth game" is far too prevalent in relation to say, "first person shooter games" or "shoot 'em up games" as opposed to "first person-shooters" and "shoot 'em ups". There are also instances of "the stealth game" (e.g. ), again unmistakably a reference to a whole concept, a genre. The most relevant precedent is Rhythm game, also peer-assessed. Someone brought up the opening line there, but the complaint (possibly a valid one) was the lack of a determiner, no one suggested dropping "game" at all. bridies (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't mind a broader discussion, on say the WP:VG page. This one doesn't get much traffic. bridies (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a broader discussion would be useful (ideally we could end up with a WP:VG guideline). But before we take it there, please comment on "Stealth games belong to the genre" and/or "A stealth game belongs to the genre..". BTW using "peer-assessed" is not very constructive; one could always use it as an argument, and no GA could ever make it to FA. Nczempin (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing to peer-assessed articles (they needn't be FA) is useful because it indicates some level of precedent and consensus, whereas pointing to any random C-class article could be dismissed as a fait accompli. I don't care for the above suggestions because -as I think you said yourself- they don't explicitly define the genre. They are also in my opinion more convoluted than the current expression. Although I do now think the sentence should state something like: "Stealth game, or simply stealth, is a video game genre..." or vice-versa. bridies (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your point is valid when you are referring to other articles. But IMHO it is not when you are referring to the article under question (After all, with my suggest, I am trying to make it even better). Which you did IIRC. If not, my mistake, sorry. Nczempin (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an issue of language. In "Stealth Game is a video game genre" the phrase 'stealth game' is the subject of the sentence, not the stealth game genre itself. Changing it to "A stealth game" avoids metalanguage by referring to an object and not the name of the genre, which really should be in quotation marks anyway.168.158.220.3 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Stealth game is the name of a genre, it is perfectly valid do do without the "a". Cf. "Science fiction is a literary genre", not "A Science fiction...". It is already bold, so it doesn't need to be in quotes. Otherwise every single title in WP would have to be. -- Nczempin (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the obvious difference is that "fiction" is plural and "game" is not. The sentence "Science fiction is..." exists with a proper adjective-noun subject, whereas "Stealth game is" can only exist as self-reference. If you're set against "A stealth game is..." as a simple fix, the manual of style suggests italics. 68.3.119.83 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is "fiction" plural? If it were, we would have to say "Science fiction are...". I don't see why "Stealth game" would be a self-reference (and I don't understand why you took the trouble to link to use-mention distinction instead of the existing article), but that could just be my lack of understanding. Perhaps italics is the way to go; it doesn't sound/look wrong to me, but I don't know whether it would be "correct" in this case. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it wasn't me who said "horrendous", it was the returning IP. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the term 68 was looking for is mass noun, not 'plural'. In other words: you can't say "fiction are" or "a fiction is" any more than you can say "water are" or "a water is". The noun is already en masse, so the sentence "Science fiction is" is already correct because it refers to fiction of the science variety. But, in the case of this article, the use-mention distinction is the grammatical rule being broken. When you mention a word, as opposed to actually using it, you have to make a distinction by either putting it in quotes or italics (such as when I mentioned the word "mass noun"). The first sentence of this article is not referring to a game of the stealth variety, but makes no distinction and therefore does not explain why the verb "is" does not match the noun "game". Basically:
 * "Stealth game is...." Correct
 * "A stealth game is..." Correct
 * "Stealth games are..." Correct
 * "Stealth game is...." Incorrect
 * A more proper analogy than science fiction would be other singular nouns, such as cookbook, "A cookbook is...", or biography, "a biography is...". It's actually pretty standard practice for encyclopedia articles to refer to a single instance rather than the subject as a whole, so I'm a little confused as to why this is so controversial. Orange (fruit) doesn't start off "Orange is the name of a fruit" but "An orange is..." 168.158.220.3 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "the giant panda"? Nevertheless I can see your point and have added italics. I'm still against "A stealth game..." for the genre vs. not-a-genre reasons above. bridies (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy
I'm a TF2 player, and I'm not sure Team Fortress 2 includes any stealth features, or at least features included on the other games on this page, that would make it belong in this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.239.214 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fallout/Oblivion?
Is Fallout 3 worth mentioning? It was just reusing the stealth mechanic used in some of The Elder Scrolls games, most notably Oblivion. It is also "first-person role-playing game" that "incorporated stealth elements within its gameplay". They were both made by the same developer, and use the same engine. Perhaps Oblivion (2006) should be mentioned instead of Fallout (2008)...--188.220.132.43 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Mod ?
Should this be mentioned? It is a successor to the spirit of the Thief games (minus the copyrightable bits), and much more to the spirit than Thief 3 some say, and already feature complete and has more than 60 missions - more content and playtime than some of the commercially released games. While it still relies on Doom 3 as a game engine, it is expected to be a stand-alone game later on.

There is a rather comprehensive German wikipedia article, but no English one yet.

Tels (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Added
The Dark Mod has been added to the recent history section with the notability of it's standalone release (articles on slashdot, kotaku, destructoid, joystiq, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Health
A common aspect of many but not all stealth games is that, if an enemy is killed stealthily, (or accurately) they die straight away regardless of their health/hit points, where as non stealth, or regular face to face fighting, health comes into it, and an enemy will need to be hit several times to get their health down before they die. I think this could be put in. Eg in Tenchu slashing an unaware enemy's throat from behind kills them instantly, but if they are aware you are there it may take several "regular hits" in combat to kill them. Strangling someone in Hitman as opposed to several shots to the body. Vaguely simular to the common idea of head shots vs body shots in many games. I could add it myself but most of the common aspects are sourced and I don't know one for this off hand, What do users think? Carlwev (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I think it could be good thing to take notice of. Many game such as Thief, MGS and even the elder scrolls games offer a one-hit kill or sneak major critical hit. It's one of the major impact of stealth on games, some games now offer the choice of ghosting (Not being seen by any enemies nor heard.) which could be considered true stealth, and kill moves to get past obstacles and such to complete a mission. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorio1 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you find a reliable source for this, go ahead and add it. Otherwise, it will be considered OR. Nczempin (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content
2010's Amnesia: The Dark Descent provided a twist to the stealth genre in that remaining in the dark causes the protagonist to go insane. Thus, while it is necessary to hide in darkness from monsters, doing so for an extended period is detrimental to the character's health, requiring more risk taking. In 2011, Deus Ex: Human Revolution (a prequel to the original game) used a contextual cover-mode that worked for both combat and stealth allowing the player to fight from cover or remain undetected entirely. When taking cover, the camera switches from a first-person to a third-person perspective to show the player character and his surroundings, as well as provide options for automatically moving to another cover position. Apart from certain unavoidable "boss fights" it is possible to complete the game without ever being detected by enemies. The game also featured several abilities, which, if added to the player character, could be used for both stealth and combat, such as the ability to see through walls or become invisible for a short duration. In 2012, the spiritual successor to the Thief Series, Dishonored, was released. Similar to Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it allowed players to use either stealth or combat (or a mix of both), as well as special powers that can be used for either purpose. Players can also use cover, but unlike Deus Ex: Human Revolution, there's no separate mode or camera perspective. Instead, players can sneak behind anything that breaks an enemy's line of sight, and must lean out to observe.

--Niemti (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stealth game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417113507/http://www.gamespot.com:80/xbox/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html?page=3 to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html?page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Manbiki Shounen
On August 18, the following content was added to the history section:

---

The first stealth game was Manbiki Shounen (Shoplifting Boy), a PET 2001 personal computer game developed by Hiroshi Suzuki, a 19 year-old Tokyo University student, in October 1979, and released in November 1979. Inspired by a 7/11 store near his university, the game involves a boy entering a convenience store and attempting to shoplift by stealing "$" symbols, while avoiding the line-of-sight detection of the owner; if caught, the player is led away by the police. He presented the game to Space Invaders developer Taito, which used it as inspiration for their similar stealth arcade game, Lupin III (based on the manga and anime of the same name), released in April 1980. Suzuki developed a Manbiki Shounen sequel, Manbiki Shoujo (Shoplifting Girl), released in November 1980 for the PET 2001, requiring an installed PCG (Programmable Character Generator) module for improved tile map graphics and more realistic movement. The game also featured speech synthesis and joystick support. Manbiki Shounen was later ported to the PC-6001 in July 1982.ref>cite book |last=Szczepaniak |first=John |year=2014 |title=The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers |publisher=SMG Szczepaniak |volume=1 |pages=604-615 |isbn=978-0-9929260-3-8 }}

---

This would be a great addition to the article, however there are some concerns about the source. "The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers" is a self-published source (and I believe kickstarter funded) and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's general guidelines for reliability. From some cursory searching, I can at least confirm that the game seems to exist and appears to be a stealth game, but most of the sources I find seem to reference back to this SPS. Firstly, can someone with access to the book please provide more direct information from the source? I.e. it appears to be a book filled with interviews. Is there a transcript of the interview with this information? Secondly, can anyone find any reliable third-party sources confirming this game, especially as a stealth game and especially as being the first stealth game? Thank you in advance. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The game itself is a reliable source for its existence. That existence could be noted after RS claims about what was first. It is not necessary to resolve the discrepancy through article text. The information about the author and his inspiration would have to be reliably sourced or autobiographical. Rhoark (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, I can't even really confirm the game exists. I thought I'd found third-party information about it and even a screenshot, but now I can't seem to find anything that doesn't trace back to the same source. It seems that this information originally came from a 2004 email interview (in Japanese) between Masamoto Morita and programmer Akira Takiguchi. The interview was copied and translated by John Szczepaniak and subsequently used in his self-published book. The wording of that interview is "Manbiki Shounen is game about shoplifting from a store while avoiding being spotted by the shopkeeper. A PC-6001 port was featured in Mycom BASIC magazine, July 1982. However, Mr. Suzuki was not involved with this port." It does not appear that the interview was published anywhere but this website, then subsequently on the Gamasutra blog (not officially overseen by Gamasutra), and finally the book. Ideally, access to the Mycom BASIC magazine from July 1982 could easily resolve this, but I can't find an archive. If anyone else digs anything up, it'd be appreciated. I don't believe it's a hoax but with such scarce information, I can't objectively confirm it isn't. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, I forgot about this source using the name MANBIKI SYONEN. Screenshots are available on this site. It does at least satisfy, to my mind, that the game existed, however this site also appears to be self-published (per the About page) and does not confirm when the game was published ("1983?"). It does seem to mention a RAM February 1980 edition, which may be another third-party magazine. Again, though, I can find no archive. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:VG/Sources, regarding Hardcore Gaming 101: "Reliability should be based on author. Content by writers like Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak or Hardcore Gaming 101 head editor and Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata are reliable."

According to WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

While The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers is a self-published source, it is written by a reliable author who writes for reliable third-party publications and consists almost entirely of interviews with developers, making it a reliable source.

In addition, Hardcore Gaming 101 (which Szczepaniak writes for, along with Retro Gamer) also mentions Manbiki Shounen as the first stealth game.

And finally, if you search for it on Google by its Japanese title, マンビキショウネン, you'll find more information, screenshots and video footage of the game. For example, here is a YouTube video of the PC-6001 version.

211.215.141.148 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvements. It's always nice to be able to add more information on the history of a subject. I didn't personally distrust the source, I just thought it was unusual to find so little mention of the game outside that source. The attribution is also a nice touch. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stealth game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105124933/http://www.absolute-playstation.com/metal_gear_2/metal_gear_2_feature_1.htm to http://www.absolute-playstation.com/metal_gear_2/metal_gear_2_feature_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523044731/http://www.1up.com/reviews/metal-gear-acid_5 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/metal-gear-acid_5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309204615/http://www.gamecyte.com/riddick-dark-athena-is-remake-no-more to http://www.gamecyte.com/riddick-dark-athena-is-remake-no-more
 * Added tag to http://www.gameinformer.com/Magazine/Insider/Articles/Article/200905/A09.0414.1437.20481.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-29-why-dishonored-ditched-its-thief-shadow-stealth-mechanic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting of deeper understanding of stealth
Strange enough how the genre analyzed in historical perspective. Some games which are famous and matches to the genre is out of the scope (Sid Meier's Covert Action). On the other hand, Saboteur completely has no stealth game mechanics (no hinding, no noise, no alarm, no disguises and so on), and is considered as a stealth game (and it's based on one not-stealth-review statement). In addition, the question of emerging of the genre is open. For example, all submarine simulator games use stealth as a cornerstone of their gameplay. Some games are not personal (shooter, RPG, ..) like F-19 Stealth Fighter and entirely based on stealth game mechanics. It seems that simulator of machine eclipses stealth, and only if a person is hiding it is considered as a stealth game. Bsivko (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you scroll back to the discussions in 2009, myself and a few other editors raised these same questions. Stealth as a gameplay element is much broader than the few major titles which defined it as a genre. At the time, there was a lot of pointless resistance to change in the article, as you can see from the massive debate over "A stealth game is" vs "stealth game is". Thankfully, some of those obstacles are no longer around and this article has expanded beyond the scope of a few cornerstone sources. I'm curious to know more about Covert Action. What do you think makes it out of scope? Also, since you mentioned it, I've looked more into Saboteur and it seems dubious at best. Retrogamer describes the ability to sneak up on guards, but I don't see any evidence of that. It appears to be just an action game. Will investigate further and possibly mark as dubious. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes which should hopefully help. Saboteur is certainly on theme and invites comparison to Metal Gear, but I don't know if "stealth" was ever intentionally programmed into the AI. I mean, any game with AI usually has some potential to "sneak up" on the enemies, but they can't all be stealth games. Still, RG is an ok source so I've attributed their claim and we can leave it at that, for now. I've also added the somewhat tongue-in-cheek comparison of Pac Man to stealth games, which should help illustrate the shades of gray. Stealth games are great in that you know them when you see them, but once you get to the details it becomes a muddy sorting game. Scoundr3l (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Covert Action - it surprises me because of missing. Covert Action is completely spy game (setting), human perspective (not simulator like F-19), it's well known as Sid Meier's work and it has numerous stealth gameplay elements - hiding from guards in action, hidden car chasing, vehicle tracing, circuit wiretapping, different enemy alarm "systems" (visual spotting, electronic, by double agent, ..), level of disturbing in different places, .. A vivid example - if you've got clothes of guards then guards will not start alarm only if they see your back. I understand how Wikipedia works and it's obvious that we need good reliable sources which conducted research about "stealth game" (but not about some particular game). Till then, it would be hard to get high quality. Otherwise, it leads to original research. That's why I'm writing about "awaiting". Bsivko (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Saboteur, I played both parts of this series and do not remember any stealth game mechanic. The only thing which can be called as 'stealth' of AI that enemy can chase the protagonist 1-2 screens and attack him. However, this kind of behaviour is present in other games which were developed and published earlier than Saboteur (e.g., Alley Cat, Maziacs, Bomberman, etc.). And I certainly wouldn't call this kind of "sneaking" as stealth mechanic. Bsivko (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see anything in Saboteur that looks like real 'stealth', just a superficial resemblance to later stealth games. I attributed that statement to the writer, at least, which I think helps. RetroGamer can be a bit spotty. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Maze games origin
There's a number of different contenders listed for "first stealth game", which is to be expected, but they're all basically maze games. We can support that Lupin III was a maze game and it was built upon Shoplifting boy, Castle Wolfenstein was based on Berzerk which is the "canonical example" of a maze game, 005 is a maze game, and even Pac Man (the maze game archetype) is given cheeky reference to being the first stealth game. I've added a mention of maze games since it's a common thread in early stealth games and hopefully passes for WP:COMMONSENSE. However, since I can't find any sources directly linking maze games to the origin of stealth games, I've left it at an empirical mention. Hopefully we find a source which expands on that as there are a lot of great maze games which fit into the "stealth" niche. In the mean time, though, I'll avoid OR and let the reader decide. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maze games has the objective which requires the successful navigation of a maze. It's completely different in comparison to stealth. Bsivko (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They're certainly not the same, I'll grant you that. But as to the question of what makes a stealth game and where they come from, the search invariably leads to maze game territory. What's interesting about the article you've linked (and I can't say I agree with the vague delimitation in most of these genres) is that it doesn't include a genre for stealth, but it does include an entry for "escape" games where the objective is to escape pursuers. The examples cited under escape games are all maze games, save one. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We can consider, for example, a submarine simulator. There are no any maze, but at the same time the game can have some stealth game mechanics. Likewise, F-19. There are a lot of dynamic objects which have different patterns of detection and gameplay is based on interaction with these patterns. Bsivko (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Added some information
Hello all, I've added several sections with some context, particularly around notable indie stealth games, the Commandos-like subgenre, and a few other things. I have added some citations but if a more practiced editor would like to review my additions that would be great. 209.205.106.18 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added citation aswell. HungerOfBox (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated 209.205.106.18 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

MGS:PW Should be added
I saw the entire list of MGS series and noticed there isnt MGS:PW and MGSV:GZ.I think they should be added. 188.132.237.187 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)