Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution

[edit]
This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!

I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!

What's your Wikipedia-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.

Gameplay of Pokemon

[edit]

I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at Pokémon (video game series). With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about Gameplay of World of Warcraft or Gameplay of Dragon Quest. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the Pokemon was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --PresN 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay of Hearthstone devotes a ton of space/text to covering every expansion. The rest of it is a more detailed version of Hearthstone#Gameplay. It's possible to retool the former as a List of Hearthstone expansions if we decide that's something we want. Otherwise, it seems to suffer the same issues as the rest of the articles at Category:Gameplay of specific video games. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of echoes my feelings on Development of Mother 3. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at Mother 3, and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of Pokémon" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of Dragon Quest" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least Pokémon has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defend Gameplay of Overwatch as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to Magic: The Gathering rules which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think Gameplay of World of Warcraft is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). Masem (t) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live service games

[edit]

I decided to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more WP:GAMEGUIDE detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.

TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like Fortnite seasonal events makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. Masem (t) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction to @Maplestrip and @Masem is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about WP:CHANGELOG here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to List of Game of Thrones episodes, without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these. — Masem (t) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with Gameplay of X is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. Masem (t) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider source question.

[edit]

Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Tomb Raider II, and the main series article. A LOT of wordy information was added by ERAGON citing a book called "The Making of Tomb Raider" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).

My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available here. If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ERAGON (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Dynasty Warriors 4

[edit]

Dynasty Warriors 4 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficially dead Nicalis game

[edit]

On the Nicalis page, we've had 90s Super GP listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? BOTTO (T•C) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like Metroid Prime 4 or Shin Megami Tensei V as vaporware or cancelled games. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like this one that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. BOTTO (T•C) 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This intrigued me, so I made the article at '90s Super GP.
From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? BOTTO (T•C) 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
after all, we got Metroid Dread... Andre🚐 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Steam (service)

[edit]

Steam (service) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise?

[edit]

Draft:Roco Kingdom (game). Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: Roco Kingdom: The Desire of Dragon, Roco Kingdom 3 and Roco Kingdom 4. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. Andre🚐 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In zh:洛克王国 it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. Andre🚐 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream AAA game, indie game or retro game communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the Roco Fandom site and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These virtual pet games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the gacha game community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film Roco Kingdom 4 grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale.[1] That's pretty crazy. Andre🚐 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. MilkyDefer 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention Honor of Kings?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. MilkyDefer 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. MilkyDefer 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 2 to January 12)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

I'm back! --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to maintain this! Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undertale

[edit]

Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (listed below) will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

  • Travers, Sean (April 2022). "Nihilism, Violence, and Popular Culture: The Postmodern Psychopath in Toby Fox's Undertale". The Journal of Popular Culture. 55 (2). Wiley: 411–431. doi:10.1111/jpcu.13120.
  • Veale, Kevin (1 April 2022). "'If anyone's going to ruin your night, it should be you': Responsibility and affective materiality in Undertale and Night in the Woods". Convergence. 28 (2). Sage: 451–467. doi:10.1177/13548565211014434. ISSN 1354-8565. Retrieved 9 January 2025.
  • Cayari, Christopher (2023). "The Music of Undertale: Participatory Culture, Video Game Music, and Creating Covers for YouTube". International Journal of Education & the Arts. 24 (22). doi:10.26209/ijea24n22.
  • Elvery, Gabriel (June 2023). "Undertale's Loveable Monsters: Investigating Parasocial Relationships with Non-Player Characters". Games and Culture. 18 (4). Sage: 475–497. doi:10.1177/15554120221105464. Retrieved 11 January 2025.

— 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real way to string these together into a coherent section. These articles are particularly disparate. I can't find mentions of Undertale in any recent video-game non-fiction books, nor any other criticism on JSTOR or Project Muse.
I gave the article a look over and the prose and sourcing look pretty good. You won't have any issues ironing any issues with this article out at FAC, IMO. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, #1 and #2 are related as they go over Undertale's management of responsibility. I can see why #3 and #4 wouldn't work, but the people at the PR said I would have issues with the FAC reviewers if I ever nominated it there without making a scholarly/academic analysis section. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, judging by the title of #3, it might be useful for the music and fandom sections. I do agree with ImagineTigers's assessment that a hypothetical section on the game's academic analysis might be impossible, but the sources found could potentially be incorporated in the rest of the article. Lazman321 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that you will have significant issues with at FAC. League of Legends doesn't have a dedicated "crisis analysis" section; nor do The Last of Us, Paper Mario: The Origami King, or Super Meat Boy. FAC reviewers cannot oppose a nomination because information that does not exist is missing. That said, I had a look on Google Scholar and did find some more that way, but many of the results there are conference articles or undergrad papers (neither are permissible). You'd be fine if you made a strong attempt to integrate often-cited sourcing elsewhere in the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Happy to see you back around @ImaginesTigers, by the way!) Panini! • 🥪 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider looking at google books. There are a lot of game designers and other media academics who write about these things. I think it's worth having an analysis section (or a subsection or paragraph), even if the sources all talk about different things. A game like Undertale is notable enough that I'm sure there are sources that have discussed it more from an analytical perspective, rather than the usual "good/bad" reception stuff. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a quick look at Google Books, I can't find anything substantial. Driving for an academic section when the game has no warranted significant coverage by academic is not a good use of an editor's time. High-quality sources should be integrated into the main article. A "scholarly criticism" section would, IMO, be embarrassing on this article. There is just nowhere near enough coverage to warrant a dedicated section. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hunch, but although this game is considered one of the greats, I feel the extreme fame of this game is more along the lines of a cult classic than a critical masterpiece. It's extremely prevalent in internet culture, sure, but as far deep analysis goes, you can only find it in amateur commentary within the internet circle itself. "Amateur" I use broadly; Game Theory, for example.
I think "scholarly analysis" is best saved for games that are individually notable or defining within the video game medium itself, or is commonly cited as a shining example of an artistic trope. That's why The Last of Us and League of Legends don't need one, big as they are. And The Origami King just wishes it was special. I think your Cultural impact section more than suffices! Panini! • 🥪 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, Google Books gives me junk. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised, but I believe you've done the work. A few scholarly articles would at least get us a short paragraph, which potentially can be its own subsection. I see a lot of hits on google scholar but it can take time to weed out the undergrad student papers and trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Making of LEGO Island: A Documentary

[edit]

Hello,

I've been advised to further this to the larger consensus. A recent documentary was made by Youtuber MattKC regarding the planning, development, and release of Lego Island. The issue, at the present moment, is that this source (while primary) would violate current Wikipedia:VG/RS source guidelines. Therefore, I would like further guidance/discussion on this topic, as documentaries (while primary sourced with interviews with developers) like these for niche games are hard to come by and would be further harder to get a bigger/aggregate source to even report on this.

There is some listed secondary sourcing, such as background clips used from development and Wes Jenkin's own autobiography, most of the work is primary/original interviews with developers on the game.

The current issue this source faces is needing backing/approval for use since this would be included in a current GA article, and would not want to do/harm anything that would lower that GA status. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe this should be fine for documentaries like if supporting non-controversial, non-biographical information. There are obvious problems associated with permitting YouTube citations, so there probably has to be additional caveats—e.g., a genuine benefit to the article for linking to it—but I am fine with it in this example in practice. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing of note, as well FYI, is that the youtuber, MattKC, is one of the leading people in decompilation and preservation of LEGO Island software, allowing for continued use on hardware it was not built for it. Just some more perspective for the director/creator to help rebuff the usefulness/validity of the documentary. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fair assessment, but of course, I would like more input on the matter since it would be included in a GA article. I can understand hesitance with setting a precedence and such by allowing this inclusion. But as you said, this would add genuine substance/benefit to the article, which could mean the inclusion of more voices on the article than just director Wes Jenkins. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as it's specifically citing what the developers are saying and not MattKC's own words (unless it's a paraphrasal or something) then it should fall under WP:PRIMARY and I would consider it usable. λ NegativeMP1 22:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within what I would consider creative liberty with the documentary does MattKC speak, mostly giving setup, background, or paraphrased/repeated information from his interviews and research. But a majority of the ~50 min documentary is either people from the project interviews (Matt's prompting/face removed from them talking) talking and/or quoted or audio sections from Wes Jekins or other project people. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChemicalBear, I understand the person behind this video is literally why you can play this game on a modern PC, but I personally believe you can just take the sources he used in the video and add them to the article if possible. Citing the documentary would be citing a tertiary-ish source that just combines the already available info out there into a video essay. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue with that is, while there are minor secondaries (like Wes Jekins own autobiography or archived old film used for filler spacing), the main idea (which was only going to be used as a See Also/External Link/etc. thing) was to include the entire thing as all of his interviews are primary sourcing ChemicalBear (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChemicalBear, you can only use those interviews as long as they aren't verifying extraordinary claims. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

[edit]

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 13 to January 19)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

January 14

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1270864520"