Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)

Notability
My prod template was removed with the edit comment "Game has been published in multiple print sources, and the Steam page is a higher Google result than the Wikipedia page for the Biblical story.)". If there are reliable sources in print, please add them to the article. All I see at present is links to blog-like reviews. The remark about Google is not convincing either. I'll leave it a couple of days for acceptable references to be provided. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it add considerably to the notability, that it's the newest work of the well-established and renown video game designer Edmund McMillen? Spiderboy (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Action RPG
Could this game also fit in the Action Role Playing Game genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.73.241 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Roguelike
Removed the roguelike genre as the game is not actually a roguelike, one of the reasons is it not having turn based gameplay. http://roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.122.53 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on the page you linked specifies that a game absolutely must be turn-based to be considered a roguelike. Since the game has 5 of the 8 "high value factors" (and 3 of the 6 low value ones) listed on that page, it's actually more than 50% roguelike. Read the second and third paragraphs of the "General Principles" section on the linked page before you sperg out and remove the genre again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.188 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since an IP is trying to remove this again, I stress the point that 69.* points out above - it doesn't met the strict Berlin definition, but has more than enough in common with those. Further, numerous sources attach the word "roguelike" to this. So there's no reason not to call it a roguelike. We just can't call it a "Berlin Interpretation" roguelike. --M ASEM (t) 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a roguelike - It might fulfill some of the criteria, but it isn't turn based, which is a requirement. I'd be happy to change it to "roguelike-like" (Which is, in fact, a genre), but as someone who is essentially an expert on the topic, I can't allow for it to stay as a "roguelike". --User:Bens dream (t) 21:51, 30 June 2013 (GMT)
 * The problem is that what a "roguelike" is is not limited to the roguelikes that exactly meet the Berlin Interpretation, based on how much the word is thrown around today with games like this, FTL, Rogue Legacy, etc in reliable sources. It's considered part of this larger genre, but clearly its not a strict rogue-like game. --M ASEM (t) 21:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term is thrown around pretty loosely, but should fact be sacrificed for a social convention? Sites like IGN or other major gaming sites calling them roguelikes doesn't make them right, it just makes them part of the masses who don't understand what a roguelike actually is. Ben 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * We go by what sources say, and by the reliable sources used by our project, they have effectively shifted what the definition of a roguelike is. This is why its clear on the roguelike page that there's the classical/Berlin approach, and the more modern one that generally related to a subset of said features. As WP, if a large number of sources are using a term in a "wrong" but otherwise consistent manner, we can't change that in how we report information. --M ASEM  (t) 22:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can agree with that. If the whole world starts calling a horse's leg a "tail", how many legs does the horse have? It still has four, regardless of what society thinks. Ben 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * It's not that journalists are creating a brand new definition of what a roguelike is, but simply instead of saying "a roguelike must have all the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" that "a roguelike has many of the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" (Which is true - Binding has procedural generated dungeons and permadeath, for example). We're not talking about a complete corruption of the definition, just a broadening of the term to include more games within it. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

this game is not a fucking roguelike you fucking nimrods. wikipedia is an extremely popular website and if you are going to propagate incorrect assumptions with no regard for the facts then i guess i understand why this website isnt allowed as a source for college papers. fuck all of the people who think this game is a roguelike, fuck everyone defending the choice of words, and fuck anyone else who never played rogue games and yet still uses the label so wantonly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.9.29 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take your trolling elsewhere please, this game is not only a roguelike but the original of it is the very game that brought the entire genre out of obscurity where it was rotting in since the mid 90s. By the way, you can consider every new room entered as a turn if it suits you.37.191.217.214 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a roguelike, though, and the idea that Binding of Isaac "brought the entire genre out of obscurity" is just plain ignorant. If any roguelike-like deserves that distinction, it's Diablo, or Spelunky. Binding of Isaac was late to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.183.14 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Binding, along with Spleunky and a few others (but not Diablo) are well noted at Roguelike to have crafted the roguelike-like subgenre. Diablo is not a roguelike since it does not have permadeath - it is noted though at Roguelike as being an edge case, as well as inspired by roguelikes. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why this still is described (only) as a roguelike. Even if we accept the proposed wider definition, calling it a roguelite or roguelike-like would still be more unambiguous as to what part of that wide definition it would fall under. And a quick google search for "The Binding of Issac" shows that most publications calls it first and foremost a "top-down shooter with RPG elements", "action-RPG shooter" and similar, and when the term roguelike is used it's usually to say the game has roguelike or roguelike-inspired elements, not that it is its principle genre. 82.164.34.180 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As no one objected to this in over a year I went ahead and changed the genre to "shooter-roguelite" in the opening and "Top-down shooter, Roguelite" in the infobox.84.202.101.38 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use "Roguelite" on WP as its not a well defined genre. --M asem (t) 23:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The roguelike article has a subsection on roguelites which is what the link redirects to, but even if we can't use that term here I don't see how the current description can be justified for a few reasons:
 * 1) the 'broadened definition of roguelike' (as you call it) has to be as ill-defined as the term "roguelite" is as they are synonymous save that the latter is reserved specifically to differentiate from the stricter, original definitions of the former (as a sub-genre of turn-based RPGs). So if "roguelite" is not well-defined enough to use we should perhaps avoid using the term "roguelike" at-all outside those games that fit the traditional definitions.
 * 2) Even disregarding that, the roguelike-inspired elements are just one small facet of the gameplay and I do not understand why it is singled out over say, the shooter elements, or even the non-roguelike-spesific RPG and action-adventure elements. Would it not be better to describe the game by the genres it definitely fit, instead of only by one it arguably fits the margins of the broadest possible definition of?
 * 3) As pointed out above it is not like the sources are in agreement that this is a roguelike and only or even principally a roguelike. Just as often, if not more so, descriptions like "RPG", "shooter", "dungeon crawler", "roguelike-inspired", "with roguelike elements", "roguelite" and "roguelike-like" seem to show up.
 * 4) Not only would describing the game in different terms be less ambiguous and potentially confusing, but it would also circumvent the entire "roguelike"-appropriation controversy and definition debate in the first place, while leaving a more in-depth discussion of how roguelikes inspired the game for later in the article.
 * If we (for some reason I do not understand) must have "roguelike" in the beginning of the article and the infobox, can't we at the very least call it a "roguelike-inspired shooter" or something along those lines? 84.202.101.38 (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

music
This games features some outstanding music that has great overall impact to set the mood. The article should detail this at least mention the music composer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.223.11 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BoI: Rebirth logo
File:Binding of Isaac Rebirth.jpg

I've posted this picture in the article twice for Rebirth's infobox, but it has been removed by Masem both times. Why shouldn't the logo be included? I don't know. I've been told to bring this to the talk page.  [  Soffredo  ]   14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a non-free image, so it has to meet our WP:NFCC policy. In general, we only allow one cover image on an article about a published work (per WP:NFCI), any additional cover art needs to have sourced discussion about the image. In this case, Rebirth is only a remake (not a new game) and the logo is very similar to the original game's logo, so we cannot include the Rebirth cover here. --M ASEM (t) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

controversy
Hasn't the anti-religious misotheistic message of this title drawn controversy? --134.193.229.228 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess something about this should probably be in the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And having looked, it is! Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But not coverage of how the story actually relates to the Biblical original. Unlike what would've happened in existent forms of religion surrounding Abraham, Isaac was not in fact sacrificed, which was the whole point of the original text: an end to human sacrifices, not an encouragement of it. --99.185.229.78 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that isn't covered by the source I doubt it would add to the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge
I don't think Rebirth needs its own article given that 90% of the core game elements are the same. There's a few more things to add and we'd treat a reception separatly, but this article is no means too large to support that. --M ASEM (t) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't merge The article for Rebirth needs to be vastly improved. Pointing to sections of this article is inappropriate; however, I don't feel that they should be merged.  While the gameplay and plot are similar, Rebirth features much more content than The Binding of Isaac.  A major expansion to Rebirth is already in the works that will further differentiate it from Isaac.  If anything, this is similar to the Madden/Fifa games that are released every year and which always receive new articles.  More importantly, Rebirth appears to meet GNG on its own based on it's coverage in sources. Ryan Vesey 08:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning that Rebirth meets the GNG, but we don't require an article on a topic that meets the GNG. And while in terms of content Rebirth is much more expansive, when you condense that down to what is encyclopedic-appropriate content, there's not much new to discuss. --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge, it's a remake, not even an expansion. Different articles cause confusion.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't merge "...not even an expansion"? How do you figure that, exactly? There are new playable characters, a new co-op mode, new items, new rooms, a new level, new bosses... sounds like a bit more than a remake to me. Anyway, they're also separate games with separate reviews that have generated separate conversations. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't merge It is definitely an expansion, a lot of new things were put in. -- 37.191.217.214 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — 37.191.217.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But for the purposes of an encyclopedia, 90% of the details of the game are the same as the original; we would mention the remake includes new bosses and items, for example, but we wouldn't enumerate them. The added reviews would be separate, yes, but we have handled that before. --M ASEM  (t) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They really are two different games, I don't think a merge would be necessary. It would be a different story if Rebirth was just an expansion, but it's not. A lot of information might be redundant, but that's OK given that someone looking for one of these games will just be looking or one or the other, not both. Trevor1324 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They share the same gameplay (save some additional details in Rebirth), the same plot. The core development is the same, there's only a few more things to add in for Rebirth. The reception will be different but we handle that all the time on remastered versions of games. While I agree they are separate games, covering separately from the concept of an encyclopedia is not appropriate. If Rebirth was a full sequel, that might be different, but it's a remastered/expansion. And in terms of helping readers find the targets, redirects will help. --M ASEM (t) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess if you really feel like it's necessary go ahead, but my concern would be people looking for Rebirth and only being able to find an article that is titled The Binding of Isaac, thus causing confusion. Plus, a lot of people will be looking for information on just Rebirth because they already know everything about the original. It seems like merging the two would just force these people to search through what they already know in order to find what they are looking for. I just don't see a pressing need for them to merge.Trevor1324 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Some questions for Masem. Can you give a rough description of what the merged article would look like? The title, would it be "The Binding of Isaac (video game)"? The lead, would it contain both game names in bold font? Would the Rebirth article get a general redirect to the merged article or will it redirect to a section? Would the merged article contain two 'Infobox video game' blocks? Would both § Development and § Release of Rebirth be merged into the section within § Development and release? That's quite a bit of text, would some of it (need to) be removed? Would the future DLC for Rebirth be mentioned in another section in 'Development and release'? The Reception section would get two level 3 headings? What would be the primary reason(s) be for merging? Is there a policy or guideline that applies to the current situation that suggests merging? The suggestion of merging the articles seems justified, but I understand some editors' fear that Rebirth might become too much of a side note in the merged article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be a second infobox for Rebirth, but near the top. There would probably be a subheading of Development to talk about the Rebirth stuff (note that some of the content under the Release section there is highly speculative of its importance to Wikipedia). There would likely be separate sections for reception, original and Rebirth. The primary reason for merging is that, unlike a sequel, these two games are tightly linked, and you cannot talk comprehensively about one without discussing the other, and as such, it makes sense to talk about them on the same page. Particularly with as little development information as there is about it. --M ASEM  (t) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Rebirth is a different game, created in a new engine, with plenty of additional content and significant graphical and aural changes. —Flax5 14:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to come across as a know-it-all, and I'm no Wikipedia expert, but... "Rebirth is a different game" This is a fact. "Created in a new engine." Fact. "Plenty of additional content and significant graphical and aural changes." Fact. Your contribution includes no argument(s), I think. It could be the start of a discussion, sure. I could, for example, respond with a statement that the merged article could simply state that Rebirth uses a new engine. That the merged article could give a rough description of what content has been changed, and so on. But it's easier if you list your argument(s) against merging. "It would increase the size of the merged article, which would negatively impact readability. The resulting article would become too long/clunky." would be an example of an argument. (One that I personally disagree with, by the way.) Why should there be two articles? If Rebirth's Development+Release are pasted into this article, and Rebirth's Reception is clearly separated using a level 3 heading, what exactly will be the problem(s) readers will run into? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't want to imply crystal balling, I feel that Rebirth will only act as a parasite to the quality of the original game's article. The problem isn't notability, IMO, it's that no one has put the effort into expanding either articles beyond being very short Start-class articles. Weak(ish) oppose. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge. Rebirth is not the original game and name, they shouldn't be treated the same. This is the same as taking a movie title (such as Fast and Furious) and putting every single sequel onto the one page. Anarchyte (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I will say though - I will bring this back to a merge discussion if people don't expand this article to give it depth. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Rebirth is not just a simple update or remake. It's a new game based on some core elements of original/previous game, but added its own unique gameplay features too. Rebirth is more similar to a sequel/reboot. Also the future dlcs and expansions will make Rebirth more different than the original game. --Zyma (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A half-year after the proposal, the Rebirth article has not progressed much and is not summarized well in the main article. Feel free to boldly merge more of Rebirth into the main article whether or not the former is kept separate. – czar   15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this: in finding a few articles that explain how Rebirth came to be while adding them here, Rebirth is clearly a remake, not an entirely new game. There's nearly no development aspects of Rebirth that are not tied to the development from the base game, so more than ever a merge makes more sense here. Just because Rebirth has more items and objects, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is the same game as the original Binding. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Development section and the 2 new DLCs added for :Rebirth would be too large to merge into this article. The Gameplay section needs updating so that it contains more info on the new bosses from Rebirth, Afterbirth and Afterbirth†. The only thing that is basically the same is the plot and even that was changed, with the cutscenes after each "Mom" and "Moms Heart" fight.  Ana  r  chyte   10:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. Since details of gameplay like bosses is gamecruft and not included, there is no real new gameplay to add from rebirth. The only two key additions are the two expansions from rebirth as Development, and reception of Rebirth, both which easily fit into this and keep the article well within size requirements. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Isaac's mom in lead
I have to agree with Soetermans, the statement about beating Isaac's mom in the lead seems weird an out of place, since she is not the final boss (as 172.14.45.33 claimed). Although it is interesting to note from a game story perspective, it is certainly not necessary in a brief overview of gameplay. Other thoughts? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The part about his mom is to continue the brief plot aspect - that (in a successful run) Isaac does come back to face his mom that put in that situation. She may not be the final boss but she should be mentioned as a boss character. It might be how the phrasing and comma use make it stick out as awkward or an addendum thought. --M ASEM (t) 13:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Cross-dressing in media" category reveals deleted content
I don't see anything in the article about cross-dressing. Looking around the web, I think this must have something to do with the "Maggie" character, which best I can tell is Isaac in a wig (and maybe dress? the video I saw was just a baby in a wig, sorry, I've never played the game so if I got the details wrong, forgive me). In any case, It looks to me like someone removed important information from the article. 70.190.181.241 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed that category. It's definitely not a defining element of the game just because some of the powerups may have specific gendered clothes. --M asem (t) 23:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac's (Isaac) is now in a fighting game
Issac is now in a fighting game called Blade Strangers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayamaya7 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Characters section
I think we should remove the characters section. All it is just listing playable characters and telling the reader what they are based off. The only source backing up the characters section is a YouTube video uploaded by Game Theory, which is an unreliable source as YouTube is user-generated and Game Theory's runner, MatPat, is not a subject-matter expert who has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessary rule out Game Theory as a possible reliable source, but I fully agree the section is undue for this article and have removed it. --M asem (t) 15:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Mew-Genics and the Escapist interview
Mostly for, I've watched the relevant section of the interview here, around the 15-16 minute mark, and I don't think what McMillan says now conflicts with what he wrote previously (Gamasutra piece) about the game's origins. They came off SMB, they knew they wanted to work on Mew-Genics next but Tommy went on a bit of a break, so Ed looked for something low stress and minimal expectations, which happened to be inspired by roguelikes at the time, seeing that proc gen would be a useful thing to have in Mew-Genics. I don't see the combination of the interview and past writing to say that Binding was specifically developed to support Mew-Genics, but served as a good learning step towards what Edward saw for the game. I have included elements of that interview in the article becuase I think it helps to set the stage for that better, but it doesn't conflict that the game cam out of a game jam, and not developed specifically for Mew-Genics. --M asem (t) 16:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I just saw the interview and thought that it clashed with it spawning from a game jam. Sorry if I was a nuisance, thanks Dimentio132 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good that you pointed it out as it adds a bit more context that I've included. Between that and what else we have, Binding wasn't set out to be pre-amble work for MewGenics,but that when they came onto using roguelike princples, saw that would be helpful towards MewGenics. So it's connected to that game, just not as purposefully. --M asem (t) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)