Talk:OverBlood

The Story

Oh my God, who the hell wrote the story part? There should be some sort of summary, not the whole damn thing! 69.121.66.69 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for claim...

Someone edited on the page, saying the game could not be completed due to a glitch, yet copies of this game are still sold on eBay. A suitable link to this point would be required to prove it is correct.45g (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since GameInformer was able to complete the game, I would assume the claim is entirely false.70.225.128.206 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Game Informer review

I think we should consider removing the section about "Wienerless Steve" from the Popular culture subsection. While it is a verifiable claim and it is sourced by a reliable source (a Game Informer video), I think it may fall afoul of WP:UNDUE. The Game Informer review of this game is not particularly notable in itself, and the term "Wienerless Steve" only makes up a small and unimportant fraction of the 6-hour video. The origin of this term comes from a scene in the game where the main character Raz is scanned in an animated sequence by a body scanner. The reviewers seem to object to the fact that the sprite does not display anatomically correct genitals in this scan. To me this sounds like a critique of the animation and as such we may delete the reference to "Wienerless Steve" without losing any useful information (Game Informer's criticism of the animation is already covered in this article). The other reason that it might benefit this article to remove this term is that it seems to unreasonably excite a certain sophomoric set of Game Informer's fanbase into repeatedly vandalizing this article. I'm worried that the very appearance of the term in this article might be enough to inspire further vandalism by these simpletons. The term has little or nothing to do with the game and I believe that deleting it will be helpful. Any objections? -Thibbs (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. -Thibbs (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTION!76.77.127.5 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Alex Kleine

Clarification for the benefit of Rachel Hatton-Ward and her friends at the GameInformer/Overblood facebook fanpage:
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with GameInformer. Wikipedia regards it as a reliable source of good information and I agree with this assessment. I am also not saying that the general fans of GameInformer, Overblood, or even Super Replay are sophomoric or that they are simpletons. What I am saying is that those of you who have repeatedly vandalized this article for the past year are behaving as simpletons and that the humor demonstrated in those edits is sophomoric. I stand by that. If you actually enjoy this game then please help improve the article by finding proper sources for the claims within it and by expanding the article in an encyclopedic manner. I don't mean to ruin your fun but sometimes positive contributions can be just as much fun as (or even more fun than) destructive ones. -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Further Game Informer problems

It is obvious that the episodes of Game Informer's "Super Replay" that featured Overblood seem to have struck a chord with some of the fans of the show. After seeing the effortless manner in which Dan Ryckert, Ben Hanson, Tim Turi, and their guests crack wise at the game's expense, I suppose it is only natural that some members of the viewership would wish to be comedians themselves. Hijinks such as the alteration of the plot details in this article to match the hilarious ones provided by Ben, Dan, Tim, and friends in Super Replay became so common at this article that the page was semi-protected several times and finally a filter was created to stop the vandalism. Understandable or no, vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia because Wikipedia tries to style itself as a serious encyclopedia.

The "Super Replay" episodes in question are not particularly useful here. Game Informer is considered to be a reliable source for video games on Wikipedia and it is a valuable resource when editors are seeking, for instance, to introduce material on a game's reception. The hilarious style of "Super Replay", however, does not readily lend itself to formal citation in an encyclopedia. At the end of the day "Super Replay" contains very little encylopaedic content. This is almost certainly what accounts for its hilarity. Whereas satiric videos are intended to be hilarious, encyclopedias rarely are. And whereas rhetorical devices like changing the protagonist's name to a hilarious alternative term are appropriate for a satiric review, such content is rarely appropriate for an encyclopedia.

The fact that Game Informer covered this game is not particularly notable in itself. Game Informer's modern-day satire of games from the mid-1990s is helpful to give us a window into how the game has withstood the advancement of technology in the intervening decade (plus a few years). Beyond this, however, details such as who the participants in the hilarious satire were or what their future plans are would probably be best reserved for an article on Super Replay or perhaps for a new "Super Replay" subsection of the Game Informer article. These kinds of details are not of any relevance to a proper understanding of the game Overblood and emphasizing them violates Wikipedia's Neutrality policy.

Unless there are any substantive objections, I will pare this material down in the next few days to only that information relevant to Overblood. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Y done -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)