Talk:NHL 15

Advertising

Someone needs to fix the page. It seems like an advertisment for the game. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not much has been released about the game so far. Pretty much everything is from advertisements (note that all sources here are easports.com except for stuff about the last game). As more info comes in and as more sources give information (reviews, etc.) it will be added. Be patient. --Mwn3d (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Should New Features be included on NHL articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should New Features be included on NHL articles? These are the articles that are included in this discussion. NHL 15, NHL 13, NHL 12, NHL 2004, and NHL 10. I didn't restore all of them after the removal by User:Eik Corell as they others have verifiability issues. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep the new features sections

I'm for the new features sections especially in the context of these video games that the only selling point is the fact that every year they get new features. It makes sense to include them. Not mention those feature are heavily talked about in reviews and have no verifiability issues (at least the newer ones).-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Prosify and rewrite. This section is basically the only thing keeping these articles from just being merged into the main NHL video game series article. Otherwise, the gameplay section could be reduced to "Main article: NHL (video game series) § Gameplay", which criminally DOESN'T exist either. I don't play sports games but the yearly sequel/roster update model is an interesting model worth documenting. Basically, cut the cruft and marketing speak, go over basic shared gameplay and highlight IMPORTANT innovations/improvements/changes over the previous game (i.e. those called out by reviews as notably good or bad). The Features removed section is notable and worth talking about; I've heard tons of discussion on podcasts etc. about how features were removed in order to ship on time across generations of consoles. THIS IS THE SOUL OF THESE ARTICLES. If you can't get it right, you might as well just merge and redirect the whole thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. I don't recall gameplay feature list being WP:GAMECRUFT, unless it is something like car list or players list etc. This section can certainly be improved, be more neutral, and have better sourcing, or be turned into proper paragraphs, but most are gameplay features that should be included. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete the new features sections

Here's a sample of what you're adding back to the Gameplay section: "Living crowds: On the next generation, the crowd is more alive with individuals holding up player signs, wearing costumes, and reacting authentically to plays. Over 9,000 new crowd models produces various different types of fans."

Here's another: "New modeling system for players and equipment allows for dynamic cloth technology in the next generation, with the players' clothes moving and affecting physics."

These aren't relevant to gameplay since they're graphical upgrades, and yet they sit in that section of the article, inserted in the form of list of all kinds of additions. Proper video game articles do not have these kinds of lists per WP:GAMECRUFT. WP:GAMECRUFT literally says that lists of gameplay items or concepts should be avoided, and states "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.", and that's my point - This is literally a list of random stuff, including said gameplay items/concepts, nothing concise about it. It looks and reads like the additions of someone who is new to Wikipedia but haven't read the WP:VG/GL guidelines. It also makes the article seem like an advert. I know it seems like overkill to delete it, but the reason these articles stay in this condition is because nobody came along to do this in the articles' infancy, and so new users come to the article and simply add more trivia to the lists they find. Eik Corell (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still curious on why you refuse to address that these games get released every year only due to these features. Not to also mention, that if something is written like an advert we tag it with Template:Advert if it's notable so it can be rewritten. We don't delete it. We delete things based on notability not if it's written like an advert. I've told you this many times and you still say the same thing like a broken record.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of video game series like the Call of Duty series has this problem of being hard to distinguish feature wise, but their entries here all have proper sections explaining their gameplay and development aspects without resorting to trivia-style lists. The difference is that these articles have received attention from experienced editors, whereas these lists are generally found on less popular games' articles, added by well-meaning, but inexperienced editors who are not aware of how video game articles should be written or specifically how new information should be added. Eik Corell (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then you are fine if the sections were expanded? You realize you are arguing based on guidelines that the New Features don't belong period? -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The New Features section doesn't belong in its current form; the information it has must be converted to prose kept within a gameplay section and a development section. Even then, one needs to be wary of using the existence of these features as the foundation of the gameplay section since they're merely changes from the preceding game, whose formula hasn't been explained to the reader yet. Eik Corell (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You kind of just shot your argument in the foot now. You realize that what you could have done is A) Do those fixes yourself. or B) Put it a gameplay section and tag it for expansion and then tag the new features subsection for clean up and explain it with the tag. That's why those tags exist and what they are for. We don't delete content like that.

What you are doing now isn't helpful to wikipedia in any way. You just delete content and don't explain what you think needs to be done. Deleting content then hiding behind guildlines that don't agree with you just makes it worse.

You yourself just said that if re written and in a full gameplay section it's fine. This is something tags could fix perfectly fine (if you don't want to fix it yourself). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's my experience that non-popular/uncared for video game articles generally sit with these tags for years with no improvement, that's why I delete such sections instead of tagging - This practice seems to be a much better strategy as far as yielding results go. I'm not familiar enough with these games to be able to write or write a gameplay section from scratch, and due to the other games' gameplay sections being like this one, I can't glean important information needed to write one from those, either. Check out the [[NHL_13|NHL 13] article's history for an example. That article has been in a similar state since its inception. I approach this whole issue from the angle that it's much worse to let a bad section stay in the unlikely hope that someone will come along and try to pry something from it or refactor it because I simply do not see it happening across the hundreds of video game articles I run across. It really only happens on popular articles with experienced editors present as I said. Eik Corell (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You want to know why when you tag nothing changes? Because of editors like yourself. You delete peoples written content (do not even alert them on it) and then hide behind oh if I tag it, it'll just stay there. NO you tag it and alert the people who wrote it. (you know help those inexperienced editors inside of chasing away editors like you're doing now). If a year then goes by then you may have an argument. Right now you don't. Not to mention the fact, you seem to cite the same Guildine over and over again when you keep getting told (by now not only myself) that it doesn't apply. Then you restore your edits during an active discussion. Violating wikipedia guildlines.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't alert and constantly debate every single editor who's contributed to these unencyclopedic categories and lists that I routinely remove from articles, I mean we're often talking hundreds of editors adding to them over many years, although when they contact me, I make a habit of at least re-iterating what guidelines I removed them by. As I said, the tagging system works for well-frequented articles, not for these types of articles where experienced authors simply don't bother. In this case, the bad article quality isn't because nobody tagged the unencyclopedic categories. Editors experienced with the WP:VG/GL that actually take a look at all these articles seldom need these tags because it's not hard to see why a bullet point list of graphical features doesn't belong in the gameplay section. I generally do not add or rewrite stuff in significant portions because my presence here is primarily focused on cleaning up articles per WP:VG/GL, and that's what I feel most capable and comfortable doing. I've cited the guideline based on which I removed these lists. You're arguing for its inclusion, even though in its current state it's clearly in violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. Why don't you write it yourself? This would cut out any speculation about whether someone will or will not come along and eventually fix it. Eik Corell (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

First, I was planning to do it with the editors here (obviously not you because you don't do anything useful for wikipedia), which usually happens after a discussion, but you had to blank it again. Now to your ridiculous statement of hundreds of editors you have to alert. You see how that conflicts with the fact that you are saying that editors won't come in. Let alone the fact that, you are never giving the articles a chance. Also, it takes 5 mins tops to find those editors and alert them. But no you are too lazy for that. You are too lazy to contribute to wikipedia and you are too lazy to alert real contributors. So what do you provide to wikipedia? Oh right nothing. You are a useless editor. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. First, "the crowd is more alive with individuals holding up player signs, wearing costumes" appears to be a copyright violation from press materials, so that needs to be addressed. Second, if this is important, cite a reliable, secondary source and put it in prose. The list is video game trivia in marketing language on its own. czar 17:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Since when did we delete whole sections based on small points. I thought I made myself very clear that this is about the content itself not whether if it's written like an advertisement. We don't delete things based on that alone. We fix them. Not mention, I clearly state they are a lot of verifiable sources on this. Once again we have another wikipedia user who refuses to do a simple google search. Here are three (there's more) on the first page of a google search [1] [2] [3].-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to see your thoughts on why we should delete the new features when that's the only reason this game gets produced every year is because of them. Also, if it gets re-written with verifiable sources does that change your thing to keep. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Features

I'm going to put all the rewritten sections from all the articles here. Feel free to rewrite it to improve it.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what kind of feedback you'd like, but replace "you" with "the player" (take a look at the video games WikiProject guidelines) and remove the spaces between punctuation and footnotes. The references appear to be from reliable reviews so no issues there. czar 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

NHL 15

The removed features section is already pretty well written (can be expanded and probably does, but the content is fine) minus the two small paragraphs so my take is keep the big one the way it is

Commentary has been changed from Gary Thorne, color commentator Bill Clement, John Davidson and analyst Pierre McGuire to Mike "Doc" Emrick and Ed "Eddie" Olczyk, respectively. Additionally, in the next generation versions Ray Ferraro will give game insights at ice level. Crowds have been improved in terms of chants, trash talking, etc. However, the fans tends be repeated throughout the arena. Additionally, the game is more realistic in terms of arenas, celebrations and and slo-mo replay.

The overall game physics has also been improved. The puck bounces more realistically off the net and goalie and the player's skater have more weight to them and as a result has more impact on the game.

Thoughts

• It's a pretty decent gameplay section. I don't think having the first sentence is appropriate, given that this section should be placed above the Features removed section. Here is the game's manual, which may be also useful in expanding the section. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The repeating fans thing isn't appropriate, I'd remove that. Eik Corell (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

NHL 13

A few changes were made to NHL 13. One being the player overall stats. Before NHL 13, player overall stats was be tied to their status (enforcer, playmaker, etc.). However, now it's only tied to Forward, Defense and Goalie. This has been noted has unfair to some players like Phil Kessel who got dinged to an 86 overall after a 86 point season. Meanwhile, Mike Richards is an 87 overall and had only 44 points.

The other main change is the AI for skaters and GMs. The AI now protects the puck, and skate more fluidly and goaltenders give up less easy goals. However, the noted GM AI improvement isn't enough and players can still out smart the AI very easily.

Thoughts

We're diving into WP:OR by pitting reviews against each other like in the second paragraph. A more appropriate follow up would be something along the lines of "However, Gamespot noted that problems still persist with the AI.". Eik Corell (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We only need to mention that the game has an updated AI. The rest should be put in the reception section. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

NHL 12

Full contact engine is introduced in the NHL 12 game. This allows goalies to be hit, bigger players being harder to knock down by smaller players, helmets coming off during a hit, being hit into the bench, and more realistic battles in front of the net (players getting tied up). Be a pro is also changed. Allowing players to play from the CHL to the NHL where your CHL player determines where you draft in the NHL. Also, Players don't as easily lose total balance if they're hit as with the previous games. For example, a player might use their hands or stumble to his knees to regain balance if hit.

For the first time in the series, players are able to create female hockey players in the game.

Small changes are made to Be a GM. Allowing the user to take control mid-simulation. Also, the AI is improve on trades and injuries.

Thoughts

A few WP:YOU concerns, some phrasing issues, some trivia. "Players don't as easily lose total balance" should be changed to "Players don't lose total balance as easily", but at the same time, this is very minor and really shouldn't mentioned. This part: "Be a pro is also changed.", should be changed to "The 'Be a Pro' mode has also been changed, allowing players-----". Eik Corell (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

NHL 10

Introduced in NHL 10 is the ability to tie you man into the boards. This allows you to move along the boards and pass the puck away with your feet. The downside is this feature slows down the game. Passing is also more realistic as the puck can be passed around the board and bad passes are more likely to hit skates, deflect off the stick or be stolen. You are also able to skate and attack other players after the whistle. Allowing for fights to break out. AI for goalies has also been improved. However, the AI of skaters isn't much improved and still suffers from the AI passing back and forth and making bad defensive passes. When players fore-check defenders, pressure the puck or finish checks increases the chance the opposing skaters make a mistake. .

Thoughts

WP:YOU and WP:OR concerns. For the first one, "the ability to tie your", "this allows you", "you are also able...", For OR: "The downside is this feature slows down the game". There's another problem: The source that's used is used to make direct claims, rather than being presented as the opinion of the reviewer. Instead of being used to negative assertions, it should be used more like this: "IGN noted a lack of improvement in AI.". Likewise, such observations really belong in the reception section instead. Eik Corell (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

NHL 2004

The game included improvements to its gameplay and game modes (a completely reworked franchise mode renamed "Dynasty"). The main gameplay improvement is the ability to control the skater and stick separately. However, Maneuver the puck around the players body to avoid the opposing player isn't as easy as it should be. The Dynasty Mode allows you to play has both the GM and Coach and all aspects of from line changes to signing TV contracts.

Another new feature of NHL 2004 was allowing the player to select when to fight, where previously it had been a somewhat random occurrence. The player can now choose to begin a fight, or hold off. Furthermore, goaltenders are now able to fight.

Thoughts

The biggest problem is the use of a source to make an assertion, i.e "The game has problems with X", instead of "Y noted that problems persist with the Z mechanic". Minor problem is the "allows you" part; should be "allows the player". Eik Corell (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Copyediting

I've started copyediting the article, moving the info on removed features to the reception section, but most importantly, adding a proper gameplay section. I'm still looking through material to discern the rest of the game modes, so there's still work to be done there, but I believe I've got most of them listed. Eik Corell (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)