Talk:Perfect Dark (2010 video game)

References for expansion

• Inside Xbox interview
• Giant Bomb interview
• Inside Gaming (Machinima.com) interview

For article expansion and sourcing improvement. --Teancum (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Added Plus XP interview reference in Enhancements subsection. <--Niwi3 (talk) 22:46, 08 February 2011 (CET)
• Added About.com review reference in Gameplay section. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:40, 08 February 2011 (CET)

Plot section inclusion

Would it be a good idea to include a plot section? or is it enough with the lead? --Niwi3 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2010 (CET)

Yes, though an abbreviated version, just like the Gameplay section. If users need to read the more complex plot they can view the N64 article. I've set up the article in prep for it. --Teancum (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I did my best. That's the best way I can abbreviate it. If you want to remove something, feel free. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2010 (CET)

Gameplay section under plot section

I think it would be better to move the Gameplay section under the plot section in order to avoid text compression between the gameplay screenshot and the Infobox. In addition, it would match the sections order of other Perfect Dark articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (CET)

Problem is, then the chronology will line up directly under the infobox, moving it out of line with the prose, or it will line up next to the infobox, presenting the same problem. If compression is the issue, moving the image from Gameplay to Development might work out better, so long as the Development section is large enough to handle such a tall image. It's more a development-type image anyway. --Teancum (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About renaming the Enhancements subsection to "Enhancements and changes"

I was thinking about renaming the Enhancements subsection to "Enhancements and changes" since the fact that all the multiplayer options are unlocked from the start is not an enhancement, but a change. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (CET)

Oppose - if more things were merely changes I might be of a mind to sway, but depending on your point of view unlocking all the multiplayer options could be considered an enhancement/improvement. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand it's not a mere change. My point of view is that this feature makes the multiplayer challenges somewhat useless, as there is not an actual reason to complete them. In any case, I suppose you're right, it depends on the point of view. <--Niwi3 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (CET)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perfect Dark (Xbox Live Arcade)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Swarm ^X 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, the first thing I did was look at the previous review. I have to say, it doesn't look like any of the major issues still exist, but I there's some issues that I'll list before I do a final check.

• "a new special agent for the Carrington Institute. On her first mission, she is sent to meet an insider from the dataDyne corporation."

  That wording should be changed so people who are unfamiliar with the game can relate.

• "most reviewers felt that the game is still a fun and exciting shooter."

  That's one of those phrases that just doesn't sound neutral. It sounds promotional, even. It simply needs to say that most critics liked the game, instead of telling the reader that it's "fun and exciting".

• I agree that the "Enhancements" section could be changed to "Enhancements and changes". Not a big deal though.
• A 'see also' section should be added. (this actually isn't needed)

GA checklist will be up in a moment. Swarm ^X 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass

Apart from my above comments, everything else looks good. Swarm ^X 20:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I've fixed the issues you listed. If there is anything else that I should know, please let me now. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (CET)

Alright, good work. I have no other concerns, so I'll go ahead and list the article. Swarm ^X 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Perfect Dark

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.

---

Per WP:NVG#Notability of derivative game releases and prior consensus at WT:VG (see here and here, and the merge of The Last of Us Remastered into The Last of Us), I don't think this remaster really warrants a standalone article. There's nothing here that couldn't be covered within the main Perfect Dark article; in particular, I think the gameplay changes (stuff like "Although Combat Simulator matches are still capped at 12 entities, the remaster can comprise eight players online simultaneously, an improvement to the original's cap of four players and eight bots" is WP:GAMECRUFTy), the development section (which is pretty stretched out with all the direct quotes), and reception (which mostly discusses how critics felt the original game aged rather than them judging it as a standalone product) could easily be condensed and integrated into the parent without losing anything. JOEBRO64 02:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose If this article were a stub I'd probably support merging it rather than having anyone bother to make an article on it, but this appears to be a WP:AINTBROKE situation. With such a detailed article about the remaster, there's zero proof that merging it will actually benefit readers, and it will result in the net destruction of information. In the words of AINTBROKE, "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Have you actually taken a good look at the article though? To me, it's a similar issue to The Last of Us Remastered (which was similarly a GA that got merged into an FA)—the majority reads like trivia padded out to look like content. Look at the gameplay section, for instance: the first paragraph is just information that's already covered in the main article, while the second paragraph is nothing but minutiae (as I said, it definitely falls under WP:GAMECRUFT, specifically items #3 and #7) that could easily be summarized. It's not "the destruction of information" when the "information" (A) isn't particularly distinct and (B) could easily fit within the main article. JOEBRO64 11:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    I did look over it. Most of it seems like it details changes the remaster made, not just repetition of the same information of the main article. This is unique information that would probably need to be cut down to fit in the main article. I stand by my assertion it would probably remove information and even if it did not, the article is both notable enough and detailed enough to stand on its own. Proposing to merge Good Articles when they are both well written and clearly notable is wasting peoples' time, especially when there are actually non-notable games out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    There's consensus against these types of articles existing, so calling a discussion based on prior consensus "wasting peoples' time" isn't assuming good faith. "It's a GA" also isn't a valid reason not to merge, when we’ve merged these types of articles in the past with absolutely no issue. JOEBRO64 13:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    "wasting peoples' time" is perhaps a blunt choice of words, but I don't see how it can possibly be construed as not assuming good faith. It makes no comment on your intentions at all. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    Are you aware that WP:NVG is in fact a failed proposal that has no relevance to the Wikiproject since 2011 and is considered seriously outdated by our present day standards? Your claim that there is "consensus against these types of articles existing" is also untrue and misleading. Like most other things on Wikipedia, everything should be decided on a case by case basis, like we are here. Haleth (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    I never claimed that NVG is a guideline anywhere. There’s nothing wrong with citing essays in rationales (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is cited all the time although it’s an essay), and it being older doesn’t mean it’s “seriously outdated”, especially when it doesn’t contradict anything in current guidelines as far as I can tell. Also I provided multiple discussions about the same topic that came to the same conclusion so there’s clearly precedence. JOEBRO64 18:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Even assuming there are no significant redundancies or excess in this article (and I agree with JoeBro that the Gameplay section has a fair bit of repetition from Perfect Dark and some of the developer quotes are basically padding), the article is short enough that it can be merged without making the target article excessively long.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Unless the title is a compilation of games (i.e. Super Mario All-Stars or Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy), I really don't see the point in giving a remaster its own article, and as has been brought up, the article's short enough to be merged with minimal hassle. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the rationales provided by the OP. Wikipedia:Notability (video games) blatantly identifies itself as an "advice page" (aka user generated essay) and should not be taken as seriously as a guideline or policy that editors should defer to in any merge discussion or AfD. The other archived discussions are indeed precedents of standalone pages about video game remasters which were deemed to be redundant, but all were decided on a case by case basis and does not reflect any existence of a broad consensus about how video game remasters ought to be treated by Wikiproject editors as a whole. The reviews cited by the article are specifically about the remaster, not passing mentions in editorials about the original game, and common sense dictates that they would inevitably make comparisons between the original and the remaster, just like how a remake would be dicussed. However, Martin IIIa's simple rationale is actually more convincing then any of the points cited by the OP. Perfect Dark (2010 video game) comes at under 10k in readable prose, while the original Perfect Dark is under 35k even though it's assessed at FA level. If a proper merge of prose about the remaster into the page about the original game is properly done, with no information lost as opposed to a lazy redirect, I am not opposed to a merger. PS: the introduction of a large amount of expanded text into the original Perfect Dark article will probably be scrutinized and eventually lead to a FA reassessment I think, because the scope of the topic would have changed. Haleth (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article covers a different topic than the target article, albiet similar. This article is a GA, And can be seen as a different game to a degree. Perhaps a renaming to Perfect Dark Remastered would be better, but the contents of this article should not be merged with the contents of a completely different article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 02:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  @PerryPerryD You have no policy or guideline argument here. Ports and remasters are frequently covered at the article of the original game, and the fact that the article is a GA does not stop it from potentially warranting merge or even deletion. These things happen. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: I think the gameplay section and the development section are solid. However, the reception section really tells me that the remastered version is really the same game as the original one. It is true that the remastered version gets its own separate reviews, but reviewers only focused on aspects of the original game when they are reviewing the remastered version and how the original game did not hold up 10 years after release, indicating that (1) they are very similar to each other, and (2) the remastered version failed to generate any commentary or discussion that can be separated from the original game. OceanHok (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  "He also praised the game's multiplayer mode over Xbox Live and highlighted the selection of weapons, the satisfying gunplay, and leaderboards, noting that they allow players to compare their performance with their friends." That does not sound like rehashing the original game to me. And the idea of a good and functioning multiplayer mode is not a given, as it could potentially be poorly implemented. Parts do review new features unique to the remaster. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that is really sufficient, if improved framerate and online leaderboard are the only new features in this remaster. OceanHok (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is a great example of readability being harmed by an insistence on splitting articles into least publishable units. The quanta that articles should be divided into are concepts, not discrete boxed products. We should be writing for the reader, not for little green/bronze medallions to display on our userpages. Needlessly fragmenting information across multiple pages (against guidelines listed at WP:SIZESPLIT) harms the reader's understanding compared to an integrated article that places it into the proper context without undue repetition. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  If that was any more of a stretch it would be made of elastic. First of all WP:SIZESPLIT does not command that smaller articles not be broken up, only that larger articles should be broken up. And secondly, there is zero evidence presented here that readers are highly confused by the existence of articles for a game and its remaster, which is clearly labeled as such. All of what you stated (that the article "harms" the reader's understanding) is total conjecture with no factual basis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not just a port/remaster, as it includes multiple online features that are absent from the original, similar to Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. It was also developed by a different studio, published by a different company, and released for a different platform 10 years after the original. Merging it into the original article will bloat its infobox and confuse readers. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  The infobox issue can easily be solved by relegating the remaster credits to footnotes. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the merge will not improve anything. In fact, it will only confuse readers with unnecessary footnotes. The context is completely different: N64 vs X360, 2000 vs 2010, Nintendo vs Microsoft, Rare vs 4J Studios, offline vs online. How would you solve the categories? Stuff like Category:Xbox One X enhanced games, Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games, and Category:Xbox Cloud Gaming games doesn't apply to the N64 game. Again, the merge will only serve to create a lot of ambiguity and confuse readers who are not familiar with video games. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This would only be an issue if we were dealing with a completely different game, which a remaster is not, by definition. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's entirely subjective. It might not be an issue for you, but it is clearly an issue for some people here and I can see why it can potentially confuse readers who are not familiar with video games. The distinction between an offline physical game that was released in 2000 versus an online digital game that was released a decade later by a different company is important and should be noted. A merge will only serve to hide that distinction, violating WP:DUE. The merge will not solve/improve anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

They're the same game. There is no meaningful distinction between them. If we were dealing with a compilation of remasters or even an outright remake, there might be a case to be made, but this isn't either of those things. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant and subjective. I could also argue that they are technically not the same game, considering that the remaster includes online multiplayer modes and looks completely different with new character models and textures. It's not just a typical remaster like Resident Evil (2015) because the art style is completely different. In fact, I could argue that there are more similarities between yearly iterations like Pro Evolution Soccer 4 and Pro Evolution Soccer 5 than between the original Perfect Dark and its remaster, but that's not the point. The point is that articles should be judged by WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DUE policies. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: "The distinction between an offline physical game that was released ..." That argument could be used to support separate articles for a game's original release and its emulated re-releases, without even changing the wording. There's no need to create hundreds of additional video game articles just to explain to readers that there's a difference between a physical release and a digital release and between the year 1993 and the year 2005. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That was my point regarding WP:DUE, but you should not ignore WP:NOTABILITY because they are somewhat related. If an old game is re-released many years after its original release and receives significant coverage in reliable sources then yes I think it should have its own article. Usually, if a re-release receives significant coverage it means that it has enough distinctions on its own, similar to Super Mario 64 DS. --Niwi3 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It won't "bloat" the infobox because, per Template:Infobox video game, no new staff would be added. The infobox only lists the original game's staff, and because this is only a port, there'd be nothing to add aside from the Xbox 360 as a platform and the remaster's release date. JOEBRO64 13:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem. The infobox will hide distinctions (like the developer and publisher) that are important, violating WP:DUE. It will treat the remaster/remake, which has received sigificant converage in reliable sources, as an irrelevant port, so it wouldn't keep a neutral point of view. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose as the ordinary standard is how reliable sources cover the "derivative". If there isn't much to add to any of the sections, the two releases can probably be merged together and covered in the same article. But this is a case where you have a pretty robust development section, with the "derivative" having a major reception of its own. (In fact, it has more reviews than the original.) It's possible someone could drastically trim the development and reception sections, to fit this into the other article. But I'm not sure what purpose that would serve other than to remove verifiable coverage and obscure the story behind the remaster. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NVG is a user essay. This game is distinct enough based on the coverage the level of changes demonstrated. It's not a fair comparison to say this is just another The Last of Us Remastered situation (that game was released only a year apart for starters).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The contents of this page can easily be translated into the main page for N64 Perfect Dark without issues. Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support There's very little to say here. The bulk of it could be condensed down to 2-3 paragraphs at most, once you take out some of the fluff around statements and long quotes. There's a few minor changes to multiplayer, a little developer detail about the re-texturing and up-rated music, and a little on the reception that focuses currently too much on "the game hasn't aged well", which means the context is still aligned to the original release. I agree also with OceanHok and Axem Titanium's statements. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This reminds me a lot of the HD Zelda remaster discussions from a little bit ago. Not much was changed from the original game, and what was changed could be easily broken out and merged into the original game's article. --Torsodog^Talk 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Merging this with the article for the original game seems needlessly confusing to readers, both for people looking for information about the original and the remaster. While reviews extensively compared the remaster to the original, I don't see that as grounds to merge the two, and I agree with the points brought up by Spy-cicle and Niwi3 - the game is distinct enough from the original to warrant its own article. Waxworker (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly sure what would be "confusing" about a merger. It's the same exact game and the remaster's additions would be summarized in its section. JOEBRO64 13:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, whether you consider the remaster the same game or not is entirely subjective and not the point (as I had already explained above). The point is that reliable sources dictate Wikipedia structure, not similarities between games. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (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.