Talk:Vampire Rain

Reception
Love this section. Please don't change it. This game sucks and this section of the article really lets you know how much this game really does suck. Savre 08:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited back in some positive comments that were removed. Please leave this in as it is important -- the article otherwise smacks of bias towards the title. Equally important is the fact that certain reviews about the game give away evidence that they haven't bothered to play it. This is obvious to anyone who actually has. Whether or not the reviewer is "noteable" is up to debate, especially when SomethingAwful forums have been included as a source. Iglus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.34.168 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ChickenWing, this war of attrition is starting to get tiresome. I am almost starting to believe that you want this game to appear bad. Not only is "noteable" is highly subjective but both sites meet the Wikipedia criteria and have been acknowledged elsewhere on Wikipedia in video game articles. Not including such criticism is ultimately leading to a biased article. Iglus


 * I only found this NZGamer website on three other articles, and most likely, it should be removed from those also. That the website is in other articles is not evidence that it should be included.  Please use more highly trafficked and noted websites for the positive/lukewarm review.  Chicken Wing 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just NZGamer, but Press Start Online as well. Again, both sites meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have an issue with this, then it's best to take it up with Wikipedia and get them to revise the guidelines. Otherwise, this war of attrition shall continue. I notice in your profile that you have no edits on any video game articles other than this one, and consequently I believe you have a beef against this game. This back and forth undo fiasco will continue as long as I believe this bias exists, and if need be I shall take it higher. I'm planning to help flesh out this article, and I will not stand for the game being thrashed because someone people believe it to be crap. Iglus —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * (1) Threatening to continue a “war” on Wikipedia isn’t a good idea. That’s not what the online encyclopedia is about.
 * (2) I edit several video game articles. I’ve created several video game articles, including this one.  I created it last year – well before any negative reviews of the game came out.
 * (3) Trying to interpret my motives for editing an article is not a good idea. It’s better to assume good faith from other editors when contributing to Wikipedia.
 * (4) I checked all the major professional reviews when helping with organizing that section of the article. None of them were positive reviews.  If any of them could even be classified as lukewarm reviews, they were in the minority.  Most reviews were negative and scathing.  If you know of a positive review I have no problem with it being added.  I only ask that the review be of a source reasonably comparable to the other professional critics cited.  Otherwise, a game with a cult following (as most bad games tend to have) could be manipulated by fans who quote their own non-noteworthy sources and websites as proof of the game’s popularity.  Chicken Wing 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A war of attrition is a phrase. Good grief. And you're right, it's not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about obtaining the "truth" of a matter by presenting viewpoints that public at large has contributed to rather than having a single editor make judgment calls. It's hard to assume "good faith" when you a) remove any attempt to post a non-scathing review (and not just my attempts) and b) use loaded words like "rehabilitate" when describing additions.

Ultimately, as I have said, both reviews posted by myself an another editor are noteworthy depending on your definition. I have gone by both Wikipedia's and GameRankings. And I strongly feel that if these sites are good enough to influence the final score at GameRankings, they are good enough to be cited in a Wikipedia article.

The point of these additions is to highlight differing opinions on the matter. I would have added Edge Magazine's print review (lukewarm at 5, but hardly "the Holocaust of games") but do not have that current issue with me to cite correctly -- and there is no online version.

The ultimate point is that removing these opinions makes the article biased. Whether or not you think it's some cultists trying to promote the game -- and it's not -- or discredit other reviews -- anyone who has played the game for more than half an hour can tell the IGN reviewer didn't play past the tutorial -- then so be it. But otherwise, if the best argument you have for exclusion is notability, then its purely subjective. Ultimately, the best thing to do would be to include the GameRankings and MetaCritic scores to balance out the criticism on both sides, rather than simply picking from one end of the scale.

And, for the record, whether or not you started this article is largely irrelevant in regards to Wikipedia.

-- Iglus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.24.52 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Use whatever phrase you want to in reference to the back-and-forth reverts, that counts as an edit war. It’s discouraged on Wikipedia.


 * (2) We don’t get to choose our own definitions of noteworthy. Wikipedia has guidelines for determining notability.  I figure it’s pretty safe to assume that there are mainstream, notable reviews that are positive they can be found here .  I found negative reviews and lukewarm reviews but no positive reviews.  It would be misleading to act as though there anything more than a negligible sect of reviewers who thought the game was good or simply mediocre.  It would also be misleading to suggest without evidence that all the professional critics that gave the game a negative review simply didn’t play it long enough.  Not only is that an irresponsible comment, it’s probably a libelous comment.


 * (3) “anyone who has played the game for more than half an hour can tell the IGN reviewer didn't play past the tutorial” When you make sweeping statements like this it’s hard to take you seriously.  Such an absolute statement is almost assuredly false.


 * (4) The metacritic.com score only reinforces the negative reception of the game. It notes that the game has an average score of 38/100 and has “generally negative reviews”.  Not one single reviewer out of 41 gave the game a positive review.


 * (5) You took my quote about starting the article out of context. I said, “I edit several video game articles. I’ve created several video game articles, including this one. I created it last year – well before any negative reviews of the game came out.”  This was a direct response to your comment, “I notice in your profile that you have no edits on any video game articles other than this one, and consequently I believe you have a beef against this game.”  Your comment was false.  My comment directly refutes the falsehood that I’ve only edited this video game article, and it provides circumstantial evidence refuting the claim that I have a beef against this particular game.


 * Your own arguments have only strengthened my opinion that the section noting the negative criticism is accurate. The only concession I can provide is that the article could probably do without the “Something Awful” quote.  Chicken Wing 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "mediocre" and "abomination". The section currently does not accurately represent the spread. I'm also dubious about the inclusion of GameStats, but don't want to fall into a hypocritical argument about notability even if I have never heard of it. That said, I also agree an edit war will get us nowhere. Consequently, I have decided to edit the section completely to let the various metasites do the talking. Hopefully you find this an adequate compromise.

P.S. For the record, you edit history doesn't show involvement in any other articles, hence my assumption.

--Iglus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.24.52 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The section appears agreeable at this point, but you might not be grasping how to check my edit history, as the edit histories of all of these video games show I have created or edited them:, , ,, , , and . Chicken Wing 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Amateur game reviewer Armake21 disputes the generally negative reviews of this title with in-game demonstrations here:. Asat 10:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The future of vampires in video games
For a good concept it was delivered rather poorly the future for vampires in video games is not looking too good I actually hope if Rockstar could come up with a great vampire game, it is a shame that vampire games dont get enough attention as zombie games.(Crypto457 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC))