Talk:The Witness (2016 video game)

Border
Considering the image caption specifically mentions the white frame, and the infobox background is a very light gray, I believe a border is appropriate - the frame is just very hard to see, and I didn't even realize there was one until after having read the caption and scanned the image for a little while, at first thinking it was referring to the sea foam (is that what it is?)--IDVtalk 21:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The border referred to is the white area (which has the circular parts at top-right and bottom left). Normally that would just be considered edge/margin/gutter for an image, but as noted it is tying into the theme/gameplay concept of the game. And unfortunately the light-blue background of the infobox barely makes the white edge clear, so I think adding the black border to make sure the poster's white border stands out helps. --M ASEM (t) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Without that, only the bulge in the corner shows evidence of this design features - which is the poster's allusion to the central mechanic of the game. A border is not simply decorative for this specific image. Indeed, ideally the border would be more than a single pixel. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

discussion of consoles in lead section
I'm removing this sentence from the lead section:"Blow opted to develop the console version for the PlayStation 4 first, claiming that Sony was more open towards independent developers." As this deletion has been reverted twice, my edit descriptions were clearly lacking. Here are four separate problems with this text: So that's why the sentence should go. Cheers! —jameslucas (" " / +) 03:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The wording is not appropriate. This use of the verb 'claim' is specifically cited as a bad choice for Wikipedia: WP:CLAIM. (Obviously this could be re-written.)
 * 2) The final clause doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources. I think it's a distortion of this quote from Polygon:"I can't speak to whether Sony actually values indie developers or not, but it sure seems like it," he says.
 * 3) Even if the final clause were true (maybe Blow said something more definite in a different interview I didn't find), the juxtaposition of the clauses is misleading. Kotaku is pretty clear that the selection of the PS4 was that Blow's "technical people like the PS4 specs a lot more than the leaked Durango specs." The current phrasing suggests otherwise, and this is WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * 4) The paragraph is primarily about the long development cycle and the consequences of that duration. Abandoning the PS3/360 generation is fundamentally a result of the long timeline, so that can stay (I may have cut that sentence too before, but I've since been convinced). But the selection of a next-gen console is a standard game-development choice and not unique to an 8-year process.


 * My only issue is with "claiming that Sony was more open towards independent developers", as I do not see this mentioned in the main body and the lead does not have a reference for this. I have no issue with word "claim". I don't think this sentence implies SYNTH with what came before it. "standard game-development choice" is not true -- few developers opt for this as it fundamentally changes the specs and deadlines and few publishers would let this happen; this is only something Blow could freely do as an indie. Anyway, I support deleting this sentence because, even if accurate, I don't think the Blow's passing comment is a significant thing to include in the lead. It's generally true that indies have a hard time with consoles, but Blow's case does not seem to be a major event here. I might be wrong if sources say it is. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The relevant body paragraph is the one that starts "Around 2012, development of The Witness..." under "Marketing and Release". And more specifically, it is this Ars Tech article that explains that Blow tried to approach MS as a indie dev, got nowhere, but Sony welcomed him. That's all in Blow's opinion (that Sony was more friendly) so "claim" is a reasonably correct wored.  --M ASEM  (t) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading WP:CLAIM; it's a pretty good guideline and reflects a significant community consensus. —jameslucas (" " / +) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I am not suggesting to remove the fact that Blow went for PS4 (and PC) first, as this follows directly that PS3 and X360 weren't enough and establishes the main contemporary console it runs on. I agree the exact reasons why likely aren't suited for the lead, but not the removal of this entire bit as it's a core part of development history. It's more important than the older console mentions. So I disagree with the removal and I do not think this discussion counts as consensus to remove. "Important development history" is exactly the reason for keeping the first part of the sentence, and I do not see any arguments for removing it, besides that the second half has the word "claim" and whatever that may imply. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I noted in my initial post above, my issue with the first clause was that it didn't really flow with the structure of the paragraph, which was fundamentally about the protracted design process. But I think you make a good point, and that this should be resolved through improved wording rather than just pruning. —jameslucas (" " / +) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Improved wording sounds good. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Witness (2016 video 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/20111027185723/http://www.1up.com/news/witness-quietly-debuted-pax to http://www.1up.com/news/witness-quietly-debuted-pax

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) 16:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

mazes vs grids
Although the first couple of puzzles in the game are legit mazes, I'd classify the rest as grid-based puzzles. I think using the term maze so frequently is misleading, so I've updated the article to reflect this. (My justification is below). If editors feel the term maze is better, please debate this with me.

The goal of almost all mazes is to reach a destination from a starting point. Typically, there is only one correct path to take in order to reach it. The solution is usually obtained through trial and error.

In contrast, for most puzzles in The Witness, tens of thousands of different possible paths can be drawn on a puzzle's grid, but only a small number (typically one) is correct. In the Witness, the goal is not to reach a destination, but to draw a line satisfying the rules of the grid that it is drawn on. Neuroxic (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A maze does not need to be a bounded path. Technically, they fall into the classification of logic maze. Most all publications refer to these as mazes. --M ASEM  (t) 06:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, (I think the majority of the puzzles are logic mazes), but I still think the first thing most people would associate with a maze is the hedge kind, which is misleading. The puzzles may be labyrinthian in scope, but many have nothing to do with mazes. (I wouldn't classify the puzzles in the desert section, or one half of the shadow puzzles as logic mazes. These were purely visual, finding the correct position to stand in order to see a reflection or superimposing the path of a shadow onto a grid respectively.)
 * Nevertheless, I've rephrased much of the gameplay section; to my mind this more accurately describes the gameplay of The Witness. Let me know if you disagree and if so I'll try to find common ground.
 * Neuroxic (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)