Talk:Disco Elysium: Difference between revisions

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs DcVD (1 participant) Kleavor (6 participants) Aston Martin DP-100 (4 participants) Cue Club 2 (2 participants) GeneRally (2 participants) How (video game) (3 participants) Anti-Cheat Expert (6 participants) Planet Half-Life (3 participants) Flash Element TD (2 participants; relisted) Dokibird (2 participants; relisted) Butterfree (9 participants; relisted) Ryo Sakazaki (7 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Screen Rant (discussion) Pokémon Emerald (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Ada Wong (nom) The Sims 4 (nom) Smash Hit (nom) Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted (nom) Good article nominations Donkey Kong (nom) Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start) Tina Armstrong (start) Birdo (nom) Shin Megami Tensei V (nom) Justin Yu (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (start) Miner 2049er (start) Pixel Piracy (start) Ether One (start) Yoshi's New Island (nom) Dr Disrespect (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start) Async Corp. (start) Hotline Miami (start) Pokémon fan games (start) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) The Outer Worlds (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (start) Pikachu (start) Visions of Mana (start) Mario Party: Island Tour (start) Meltan (start) Bejeweled (video game) (start) Kleavor (start) Haunter (Pokémon) (start) DYK nominations Delibird Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom) Pokémon Channel (nom) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (nom) A Space for the Unbound (rev) Tetris (NES video game) (rev) Articles that need... assessment (2) (3) reassessment (0) cleanup (8) infoboxes (18) cover art (251) screenshots (8,823) photos (66) translation from japan (189) creation merging

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: WP:NVIDEOGAMES says this needs more seources than it currently has. Only 1 of its sources appears to count towards notability..

Lopifalko (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: - I know we both chat over at List of video games considered the best , so I'm a little surprised at your slant here. It's simply too soon to say "greatest ever" in any way that doesn't grossly overrate contemporary reviews. WP:PEACOCK explicitly discourages this kind of general comment about being The Greatest Ever. I do agree that calling out one awards ceremony can be undue, and in time, perhaps this statement can be modified to something like "Disco Elysium won multiple best-of awards from critics, including X, Y, and Z." Finally, this game won't stay PC exclusive forever. I really don't see the issue with keeping to what's verifiable here - that it won a major prestigious award - rather than something vague that reads like fan gushing. SnowFire (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you, but can it really be WP:PEACOCK if multiple sources agree on a common thing? (else that entire list would fall under it too) It's better to put why they think it's among the best PC RPGs instead of that generic comment though. I only put that there because I was planning on expanding the reception section later, and it needed something in the lead until then to note the general consensus. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be, because most of what we have now aren't "good" sources for such a claim. Contemporary reviews aren't useful for such a statement and should be discounted. You can say "The game received critical acclaim" and that covers it. "Best ever" requires time to distinguish review hyperbole from actual greatness. It'd be like claiming a sports team was the best ever before the championship match was even played by citing local newspaper columns that were hyped about the team. Anyway, I think the new lede looks better, so thanks.

Also, taking a reverse slant, I think you actually underplay the game by merely saying "4 awards". As far as a reader not deeply familiar with one particular awards ceremony goes, they could have been award for Best Cat or Cool Game We Liked or other "fluff" awards. It's more powerful to say that it won Best RPG and Best Narrative and be specific that yes, it won some "real" awards. SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the game is among the best RPGs, assuming you have multiple RS citations that support it, wouldn't really be an issue of WP:RECENTISM IMO. I understand what you mean, but your sports team example would be more accurate if they were saying this before the game released. Multiple sports reporters saying that the most recent sportsball championship was among the best ever is valid, even if most of the articles are written only a day or two after the event.

As for the exact award names, I omitted them for WP:LEAD generalization reasons, not to downplay them. I don't think it's really WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume the game will receive more nominations in the future, and some wins out of that, especially since most of the other ceremonies haven't taken place yet. As an example, if other award shows nominate the game for best writing/story/narrative, then you can generalize the entire part to read "Disco Elysium received universal acclaim from critics. Its narrative and conversational systems in particular were praised, with it receiving several awards and accolades for it." or something similar. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: I strongly believe the Chapo Trap House podcast episode which specifically talks about this game should be pointed to in the references. They majorly contributed to the game's creation, despite not being paid, and they talked about the game in the podcast and contributed important information about the games development. Mentioning that Chapo Trap House was involved (and pointing to the podcast which talks about it) doesn't violate Wikipedia rules as "promotional".. its a fact of the games creation. Is there some alternate way the podcast can be mentioned as contributing to the game that you would find acceptable, or are you simply going to completely prohibit any mention? Chapo Trap House has its own Wikipedia entry and is the highest earning Patreon for any podcast. It is not a non-notable contributor to the game. If you listen to the section of the podcast mentioned in my note which you removed/reverted, you will note that the information given is quite relevant to anyone interested in how this game was created, and I believe this information is worthy of being disseminated here. I would also like to hear what other contributors think --Radical Mallard (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]