Wikipedia

Talk:Thatgamecompany/Archives/2013

< Talk:Thatgamecompany
Latest comment: 12 years ago by PresN in topic Merger proposal (Robin Hunicke -> here)


History of thatgamecompany's Games

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since it's four in the morning, I can't think much of fixing it up to look better. I'm thinking that the history of their games should be part of history, but then that would mean that we would have to break up the current History part and give it it's own sub-section, i.e. history of the company. Another thing we could do is have this be it's own section, but I just want to know what others think, because I'm just one guy here. And please don't just delete that information, as if it has to be deleted, we can surely switch around some of that information into "History" or something else, so my time hasn't been completely wasted. (I'm talking to you, ChimpanzeeUK - Wikipedia:Trivia "If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.") Amish Gramish (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago43 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Thatgamecompany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Comments below
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Comment below
  7. Overall assessment.
  •   Done"University of Southern California Interactive Media Division" doesn't have apostrophe while "University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts" does. You did use it in Flow and Jenova Chen articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"The strong response to the game" -- strong? Should probably clarify if it was good/positive/mixed? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"continue making games like it after they left school" -- may be just say "like Flow". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"normal physical production" -- I assume this is retail distribution, albeit worded strange. May not be clear to a general reader. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"The strong response to the game, released in 2005," -- what was released in 2005 -- game or response? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Technically I'd just said that they decided in Fall 2005, right after releasing the game, so restating 2005 isn't useful. --PresN 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   DoneI think "Game Title" and "Release Date" can be "Game title" and "Release date", since they aren't proper nouns and the first word is already capitalized for table caption. I know though many editors prefer all first caps table captions sometimes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"The company was housed in the Sony offices in Los Angeles and given the funds to start up the company" -- would the two clauses not be best the other way around (first fund, then house)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"producer", "designer" and engineer? should be linked. I'm not sure what engineer means though? Game engine? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Engineer is programmer. They're technically different, but colloquially in the industry engineer is sometimes used for programmers that also design the systems they're coding, as opposed to "grunt" programmers who get told what to write. The distinction is meaningless in this case, and I'm pretty sure he picked his own title as TGC isn't consistent in what they call their employees. --PresN 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's the plan! Feel free to nitpick all you want here- light knows you or someone else'll nitpick the heck out of it at FAC. :) --PresN 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"were built by SuperVillain Studios;" - built? May be designed/created/developed? Not a typical word for video game dev. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"beyond a design influence and art direction role" -- this asks for a little more explanation, additional info. Basically I am wondering, what "design influence" and "art direction" is exactly. I think could guess pretty close, but a general reader might not. You might also link game design and game art design. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"The final game of Thatgamecompany's three-game contract with Sony, it is being developed by a team of twelve." -- sentence structure. Perhaps "This is the final game of Thatgamecompany's three-game contract with Sony and is being developed by a team of twelve." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done" This does not include Santiago, who was replaced as a producer by Robin Hunicke in order to concentrate on her role as the company's president" —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Presumably you meant the "this"; changed to "this team"
  •   Done"than are typically shown" -- so what experiences are typically shown and by whom? Is the source vague too? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"meant to convey emotions more than a message" -- so they are also meant to convey a message a little? Also is convey the right word? Video games do not have emotions and could only convey them from some in-game character. Perhaps use "provoke" or a synonym (evoke?:)) like in the lead? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • He contradicts himself in that interview; he says that it's a mix of feelings and a message and then spends the rest of the paragraph saying that he's too young to make games with a strong message so he focuses on feelings. Also- evoke is good because I used convey too much, but I would argue that convey is just as applicable as evoke- static objects evoke; dynamic, reactive objects can convey as well. That's a large part of Chen's design ideas- that when the game reacts to what the player is doing it can actively express (convey) emotions to the player, not just have the player react (evoke) to it. Semantics, though. --PresN 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"Through this she hopes to change the rest of the industry to also approach making videogames" -- video games separate as the quote ended and next one hasn't begun yet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"as the pressure on profits that that entails" -- "that" twice. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done"Thatgamecompany tries to support the independent video game development industry by funding and connecting independent game developers" -- how? A little cliff-hanger sentence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Dropping it- they were vague on the details, and the interview was 2 years ago- nothing definite has materialized. They do connect indie game devs to each other, but that's just called being nice- most indie devs network like that. --PresN 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   DoneWould games rather have a little 1-3 sentence description and {{main}} links instead of table? That would be mostly my preference though to better make this into a "topic" article. Anycase, does PlayStation 3 need to be linked 3 times? Table isn't sortable so what's the point? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, changed to text. The other VG GA's either integrate it into History (Bungie), have a separate list and integrate it into History (Key (company)), or do it all in text as there are no separate articles (ABA Games). Most of the text is lifted straight from the relevant articles, though Journey is of course not an FA like the other two. --PresN 00:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh, I'd like to but the art style changes between games, and I don't think I can defend it at FAC. I would if I had a free-use one. --PresN 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for hastily written and a bit abrupt explanations. GAs are not the most popular area and this one's marinating since start of April. Hasty review is better than no review :) Anyway, since I know you'll most likely take this to FAC, might as well pick on small details now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Gotten through all of the comments. --PresN 00:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
All seems nice for a GA! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Robin Hunicke -> here)

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I propose that Robin Hunicke be merged into Thatgamecompany. Ms. Hunicke seems, to me, to be insufficiently notable to merit her own article. The issue is somewhat complicated by her photo having recently been named a Featured Picture, but that (in and of itself) shouldn't be enough to justify keeping a separate article, as opposed to incorporating the photo (and some of the text) from her existing article into the company's article. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with merging her here, and doubly disagree to merging anywhere. She has been a designer and producer for several games for EA- and only one unfinished game for TGC. I also think she's notable enough for an article- I'm seeing 11 sources there even after you drop the ones about her games, the TGC ones, and her personal page. I've also seen a couple other interviews with her that aren't used on that page. --PresN 16:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm going to say oppose, because she is both notable on her own and thatgamecompany is not the "parent" article for her, as her career and involvement is not limited to this company. The picture is nice, but irrelevant as with or without it, she passes GNG. I see several decently detailed secondary reliable sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of the cited sources appear to be dead links — can anyone else verify whether they can get to the "Game Design Workshop 2009" or "Experimental Gameplay" sites? If her ties to thatgamecompany aren't that strong, and if additional good secondary sources can be added (possibly replacing some of the existing sources), the case for keeping her existing bio would seem stronger. I, personally, am not yet fully convinced that Hunicke is sufficiently notable per WP:PEOPLE to merit her own article, but I realize we need a consensus here and not just one editor's view. I think I may also bring up the question at Talk:Video game producer and Category talk:American video game designers, in hopes of getting more of a perspective from editors who are dealing with lots of articles similar to this one. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe take it to WT:VG as well, you'll be more likely to get a larger group. --PresN 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Those links were definitely dead; I've replaced them with ones for the 2011 GDC but one of them sill surely die again when the 2012 one rolls around; we'll need some archivelinks if the sources remain as given. --PresN 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose the merger. I think her notability both in general and in the industry is established through reliable and verifiable sources - having been featured in Gamasutra as a notable woman in game dev, Edge as one of the hot 100 developers, and being nominated for awards by the IGDA and BAFTA. I would recommend though, putting the merge template on that page to help spur discusson here and getting a clear consensus one way or the other. Nevermind, I'll do that. -Addionne (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the merger as well. Robin has only worked on TGC's latest game, Journey, and one little game she worked on, Steven Spielberg's Boom Blox is likely more famous/popular than any game by thatgamecompany. She's also performing the same role as she did on both Boom Blox games. It would be much better for her page to be incorporated with one of those games. (Also, Kellee and Jenova are the main TGC members thought of when thatgamecompany or its games are brought up, so their pages would either have to be merged or incorporated in the TGC page as well.) Amish Gramish (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose any merger or edit that would cause her page to be deleted. She is an award-winning game designer and was named by Gamasutra as one of the top 20 women in games in 2008 ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3589/women_in_games_the_gamasutra_20.php?page=7 ). I am also a professional game designer and can confirm her notability within the industry. She should absolutely have her own page, and it would be great to see "women in game development" as a wikipedia category in general. Gryphoness (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries, this discussion died 6 months ago, so her article isn't going to get merged anywhere. She's certainly notable enough for her own page- maybe I'll work on it after Journey drops next month. --PresN 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am just wondering why it says ThatGameCompany. I have never seen it used as "ThatGameCompany," and I cannot find anywhere that lists it as "ThatGameCompany." I am going to change it in a couple weeks if no one gives me a response. Amish Gramish (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I found that it has to be Thatgamecompany, but the capitalization of the "G" and "C" in the name don't make sense, and CamelCase doesn't apply to this name, as nothing in the middle has been capitalized. Because of this, I'm going to correct, to as much as I can, the name of the article. (thatgamecompany would be the most correct, but in accordance of Wikipedia's rules, I will just change it to Thatgamecompany) Amish Gramish (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was written ThatGameCompany because it makes it easier to read and easier to understand how the word it meant to be read. I'll get a second opinion on this before I change it back. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
We're not supposed to make things up on Wikipedia. That's not to say there's no room for creativity, but it doesn't extend to inventing a capitalization that no one else has used.
WP:MOSTM says:
CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable (emphasis mine)
Here, you seem to be missing on the first criterion — the CamelCase version does not appear to reflect general usage. --Trovatore (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. Some notable sources (such as Gamespot and CNET) have referred to it as ThatGameCompany but yes, I suppose it doesn't really constitute "general usage". ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Gamespot has also referred to them as thatgamecompany a few times I think. I guess it depends on the writer and who's editing it. -- クラウド６６８ 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just how PriceWaterHouseCoopers is written like that on Wikipedia, so it's easier to read. Oh wait, it isn't. It's written as PricewaterhouseCoopers. PricewaterhouseCoopers Amish Gramish (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thatgamecompany/Archives/2013&oldid=1137226197"