Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Role-playing shooter


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Role-playing shooter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possible failure of WP:OR. The Old Pinball Wizard (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Shooter RPGs are definitely a real sub-genre, but the sourcing in this article is beyond awful. Gamefaqs as a source?  If reliable sources can be found, it should be kept.  If not, then delete it.  I wouldn't be surprised to find significant coverage out there, but this one's not worth my time to search. --Teancum (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Falls down the original research well as suggested by the nominator, the supplied sources are of dubious reliability in a lot of cases and address individual games rather than encompass the concept. A brief web search turned up discussion of Borderlands but not a lot else. Genres are a bone of contention and wikipedia doesn't need articles on half-baked concepts passed off as the real thing. (Short version, see below for further waffle). Someoneanother 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was created (apparently) on the back of Borderlands ' marketing BS, the developers claimed it was the first ever role-playing shooter, it is a favourite marketing trick to claim some new genre has been created by a new "wunder-product". Hybrids happen all the time, in fact if you look at modern gaming chatter you'll see it suggested that games on modern consoles (and increasingly on PC) are becoming more and more mashed-together when it comes to genre, everything has RPG elements. When you consider that a genre is basically a set of core rules, the chances of a new one emerging from this mishmash within full-price console titles is extremely small. Virtually all recently created genres, such as Tower Defense come from freeware and the casusal sector, since developers in these areas copy each other directly and simplistic but addictive game concepts are lucrative. If there is truly a genre here then it needs reliable sources which leave nothing to the imagination, from a number of publications to show it's widely accepted. Until that point there's nothing but established gaming concepts brought together in different degrees in different games, which are just hybrids. Someoneanother 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is being hyped should indicate that it's out there. Marketing people aren't smart enough to come up with ideas on their own. SharkD   Talk  16:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shooters with RPG elements and vice versa are certainly out there, games from virtually every genre have had RPG elements in them, that doesn't make any of them a genre in their own right, experiments and fads happen. If it really is a newly recognized genre then the grunt work has to come first, it has to be a meaningful grouping with criteria, sources need to identify early examples to be reassigned the new genre etc. "That plays kind of like this" does not cut it, which is all the article really says (but in a well-written way). While I can agree with everyone here that games featuring both genres exist, I strongly disagree with putting together non-existent genres with scrappy sources and musings. Someoneanother 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied there are enough reliable sources (none of which are actually cited in the article as far as I can tell) that mentioning their status as a (sub-)genre among some reviewers is warranted. If not in this article, then in some other. SharkD   Talk  22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a basis for the grouping/genre/whatever it's just slapping words together in the loosest and least useful way possible. The whole point is to have a classification. Is it a sub genre of RPGs, or of FPS, or of shooters in general? What do the games classified that way share? Like all meaningful and recognized classifications it has to have a set of criteria, it has to mean something, it can't just be a lackadaisy term meaning any game with RPG and shooter elements, there's a million and one terms like that floating around and hollow terms is all they'll ever be. Someoneanother 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Computer Graphics World, Nov. 2009, describing Borderlands: "Borderlands computer game is not your average first-person shooter (FPS), nor is it the typical role-playing game (RPG). It is a bit of both: a role-playing shooter, if you will."  Electronic Gaming Monthly, Jan 1, 2006, describing Doom RPG: "...this role-playing  shooter lets you rampage with 10 of the traditional Doom weapons--including the BFG--through 10 levels and even offers an end-game URL that lets you track your performance."  Computer Gaming World, Aug. 2006, describing Huxley: "South Korean dev Webzen's punched-up hybrid role-playing shooter  Huxley literally swarms you with opponents."  Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Sep. 14, 2008, describing Fallout 3: "This is a role-playing shooter of epic proportions, unfolding in a post apocalyptic Washington, D.C, where your character ventures out from the safety of a fallout shelter in search of a lost father."  Electronic Gaming Monthly, May 2006, again about Huxley.  Article title: "Huxley; 200-player firefights? PC and 360 gamers teaming up? Welcome to online role-playing shooter Huxley's bold new world of warcraft."  Wireless News, Dec. 5, 2005: "The first title to be published under the 2K Games label will be BioShock, a role-playing shooter for next-generation console systems and PC."  Also a few Business Wire articles about 2K Games/Borderlands that had too much of a press release feel about them for my taste.  I couldn't find any smooth places to fit the citations into the article as it is, and they're pretty thin anyway.  My take on the term is that it's more descriptive of individual games than of an actual genre, or subgenre.  That could change if games of this type continue to be developed.  The WP article definitely has OR problems.  Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - I'm satisfied that the genre exists, at the very least in the minds of a small number of gaming journalists. Not sure if there's enough material to form an entire article, though. At worst, it can be merged into Role-playing video game. SharkD   Talk  16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the uncited material should be removed or replaced with better ones too. If that's not possible, then redirect as a valid search term. SharkD   Talk  22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I see no nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. The term is neologistic and most of the article is original research not supported by sources. No results on Google News/Books/Scholar. Google Web results are filled with Borderlands press releases and trivial mentions of the phrase similar to the ones above. The article was basically created on the back of Borderlands' marketing tactics (see ), yet most major gaming websites still classify the game as an action RPG or a first-person shooter. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this reminds me of the AfD on "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena", which was another attempt at a developer attempting to push a new gaming term. Similarly, we are only seeing RPS mentioned by journalists in relation to the press releases of one game. Marasmusine (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.