Wikipedia

Talk:First-person (video games)

(Redirected from Talk:First person (video games))
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 67.198.7.145 in topic Onamonapia
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Marathon 1 Screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rename article?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think renaming the article to First person perspective (video games) might be better. I've even seen the acronym FPP used to describe the perspective. SharkD  Talk  13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

First person (video games) → First-person perspective –This article was probably put at the current title to disambiguate from first-person narrative, but that topic is rarely referred to as "first-person perspective" (usually either "first-person narrative" or simply "first-person"). Any slight chance that this name will cause confusion will be alleviated with a hatnote (already in place). The title should definitely be hyphenated, as we are not talking about someone who arrived before the second and third people ("first person to show up" v. "first-person perspective"). The simple "first-person" is rarely used for video games unless it is followed by something (first-person shooter, first-person adventure, first-person RPG, etc.).

This rename will also open the article to cover the wider topic of first-person perspective in more general media. Although it is not nearly as common in film or television, and the article will still primarily be about video games, this is still a device that is used and can be linked to for clarity. Often this device is used for the babies or animals (Eddie from Frasier, or the commercials for Beggin' Strips), or to show the effects of drugs or psychosis (Father Jack Hackett on Father Ted, or the overdose in Trainspotting). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The use of first-person as a narrative device in television and film is really a separate (if related) concept to a first-person video game. It actually is more closely related to first-person narrative, the literary device. As such, while I think a separate article on first-person perspective as a broad concept would be valuable, I don't think this article should be modified to become it. Powers T 01:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First-person (video games). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First-person (video games). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 2 September 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved: no significant consensus to move all. It may be worth considering another RM without Quest, Spawning, Life, Warp, Last man standing, Unlockable, Line of sight, Tank, Healer. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

– Per WP:NCVGDAB: "10. For video game specific terminology use (video gaming); for video game terminology that is also used with non-video games, use (gaming)." Listed articles are specific only to video games (please correct me if I'm wrong). I hope no articles escaped me. I used a search string intitle:/\(gaming\)/ with SearchSuite — bieχχ (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Quests, mobs, life, warp, line of sight, tank, healer, and nuke, even if not currently written this way, all strike me as concepts that would show up in RPGs, which are not video game specific. I would oppose moving these. Space system doesn't strike me as notable. The rest seem like reasonable moves. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree. TBH, I think that guideline should get some love and updates. I really don't think the distinction of disambiguater between "video gaming" and "gaming" is needed when dealing with terminology/concepts. --Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • TBH, I don't know if the consensus to use "video game" rather than "game" is necessary either, unless disambiguating with some other kind of game at this point. But that one's ancient, and deserves an RFC to change. --Izno (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • As someone who has been involved with a number of these articles, I have no strong feelings on this topic. I like how short "gaming" is, but I don't think it's worth making too big a fuss about. I kinda agree with Gonnym that this distinction has become a bit moot, as there is often no need to disambiguate between different types of 'games'. Meanwhile, I would never disambiguate an esports athlete as simply a "game player" so I am clearly not consistent with this thought. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support – WP:VG has somehow inexplicably carved itself out "an exception" from doing what would elsewhere be considered "complete" (and necessary) disambiguation (e.g. getting away with "(series)" as diambig., when it clearly should be "(video game series)", or at least "(game series)" at a minimum), so there's no time like the present to start finally moving these articles to necessary disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • @IJBall: the problem which was raised by Izno, is that video games share a lot of terminology with other games (such as Tabletop games), where as he pointed out - quests, life, warp, LoS, tank, healer and other terms are used. The articles in their current state do not mention them, but that doesn't mean these terms will get a separate article for them, as they are basically the same thing in all games, just slightly different implementation (which can be said is also true between different video games). --Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not necessarily saying that it's not "arguable". But, on balance, I find the proposal is the better solution, and hopefully this RM will spearhead the process into moving all the other insufficiently disambiguated video game articles... But I'll try to remember to keep an eye on this one, as I'm not completely bound to the current proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
I totally agree with you on the series one and in another RM discussion I voiced issues with another different disambig option, but this one just makes the scope not usable by any non-video game, which is strange considering that these games probably used some of these terms way before video games came out. --Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think the title should describe what the article is about, not about what it may/will be. If, let's say, Life (gaming) gets moved to Life (video gaming), it doesn't prevent anybody from later expanding the article to cover life in paper-and-pencil games and then moving it back to (gaming). Moves aren't costly. — bieχχ (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose for Quest, Tank, Healer, Line of sight, and Spam. Neutral on the others. For the ones I opposed, all of them are terms that are also used in tabletop roll playing games and, for some of them, in board games and wargames as well. Also, I agree with Izno that Space probably shouldn't be an article. I'm not going to pull the trigger, but if someone else here files a request to delete on that, ping me. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Quest, Spawning, Life, Warp, Last man standing, Unlockable, Line of sight, Tank, Healer - these terms I know are used in other games (non-video games). --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. All of the articles above currently appear to be about video games, rather than games in general, so (video gaming) would be appropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beginnings

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Beginnings section of History jumps into first person shooters despite the article being about first person games in general. That makes for a confusing flow into the next section, and also ignores any early non-shooters that have used a first person perspective. Dgpop (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Onamonapia

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Compound 67.198.7.145 (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Onamonapia

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Compound call Pam compound 67.198.7.145 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First-person_(video_games)&oldid=1251443773"