Talk:Uncharted 4: A Thief's End/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Johnes8745 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The page has not been nominated for deletion. Chambr (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I recently made an edit on this page regarding the sales. The two sources I used where both the official statements made on the PlayStation Blog, a platform Sony uses to both advertise and also release statements to their audience and the general public. Veteran user @AdrianGamer: removed both sources and instead linked to IGN and GamesRadar. He has written many articles so I assume it is common practice to him. But why would anyone do that? Both those other sources have the PS Blog post as a source. The two site's posts are ok, but they also include unneeded videos and link to other content on their site (specifically their reviews and a typical IGN video that has something to do with the game). So why is it that we prefer a source that copies from the original source when we could just take the much cleaner and better original source, a post that was made by the Senior Director of Brand Marketing on an official page run by the publisher of the game itself?

Not that it really bothers me because as long as the info is accurate it is fine, but this has gotten me really curious. Personally I would always prefer the original source that includes all the info over a source that just paraphrases the original source while leaving some info out and advertising other contents on their site instead.KingSiri (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

They are secondary sources, which are not materials written by people directly involved. Posts from PlayStation Blog is written by representatives from Sony, so they are primary sources. We generally prefer secondary sources over primary sources. Although PlayStation Blog is usable, there are better alternatives. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thanks for the quick reply. I was curious as to why this is done because I've seen it on a few other articles as well. I guess it makes sense that these secondary sources are preferred since the writers are not representatives of the product they are writing about, but I'm not sure if that's an issue when talking about sales. To me the primary source, in many cases, still looks better because the ammount of ads and cross-linking done on the secondary sources is insane, especially on sites like IGN. But yeah, thanks for the info, I appreciate it a lot.KingSiri (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reception section

I don't think it's necessary to have a talk page discussion about this but I was told to do so so here it is. It's coming to my attention that unregistered users are trying to remove the coverage summary of the negative review Uncharted 4 got. That's not going to happen on my watch because it's obviously being done to make bias and seem like Uncharted 4 didn't receive any negative press. Osh33m (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know that WP:UNDUE exists? The game has received over 100 positive reviews and only 1 negative review. I would argue that the negative review probably should not be included because of this. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If anything I think that makes it even more imperative to include the negative review. The opening statement of the reception says "critical acclaim" - but a negative review does exist, and it should be highlighted as stark contrast to the universal acclaim. Osh33m (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

While per WP:WEIGHT I don't think this would be necessary to add on its own the fact that there is a petition to have it removed from Meta Critic with one of the actors lending support to the petition is enough to warrant it.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I think it is necessary because it was publicized and important people were involved but obviously once again this is a lost cause. Osh33m (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

There's like only about a dozen reviews listed here, there's over 100 positive reviews, listing 1 negative over 100 positives is very overlooking and unrepresentative of the reception. JckM235 (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. Among all the positive reviews, putting the one and only negative review highlights that there ever even was one - it is especially relevant because of the petition that it spawned that Troy Baker signed. Osh33m (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. JckM235 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy that. Just because that is wikipedia's official policy doesn't mean it is a perfect policy. Practically every reception section I've seen presents a negative review or positive review even if the overall reception is starkly in one direction. Furthermore as I mention again, this had a lot of media coverage and even spawned a petition signed by Troy Baker. That is noteworthy. Leaving it out is nonsensical. But like I said, this is a lost cause. There's nothing else to be said. Osh33m (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Site not working?

One site listed as a source appears not to work at least for me. Could someone please check it to see if it works for you? http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/uncharted_4_review.html 2601:982:8200:4790:D0E:17BD:5A3E:D7CC (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Working fine for me. Archived version here. – Rhain ☔ 01:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sales

It's not correct to write just "A commercial success" so I corrected it and I've seen the sales of this game in the sales block so that's why I did this, it will improve the article. Pure conSouls (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Uncharted Best Selling Playstation 4 Game

Is it really the best selling PS4 game? Where is the source? I thought Grand Theft Auto V was still the best selling game on the PS4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.38.130 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@114.130.38.130 It’s the best selling ps4 exclusive game. On the console (exclusives and multi platform) GTA V is the best selling. One thing I don’t get is the admin linking the page to another article talking about exclusives only when describing all games sold on the console. But apparently changing it is to make sense is too much for the people at Wikipedia to handle82.13.194.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source confirming that Uncharted 4 is the best-selling PlayStation 4-exclusive game, it will be added to the article. List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games refers to all PlayStation 4 games, not just exclusives. – Rhain ☔ 02:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Troy Baker comments

Why were Troy Baker's comments about the negative review removed from the reception section? Osh33m (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"greatest game yadi yada" cite needed

"and it is considered to be one of the greatest video games of all time" - according to the tool thingy this same phrase has been removed and replaced at least once before, and does not seem to be appropriate language for a wiki. 203.213.90.41 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay video clip

Please watch these two videos and share which you feel is more suitable to the article:

• File:Uncharted4 Gameplay Clip1.webm
• File:Uncharted 4 gameplay video.ogv

I personally believe that the latter (my own upload) is more suitable, as it demonstrates more features of the game and its gameplay (player character, companion AI, enemy AI, stealth, traversal, grappling hook, cover, damage/near-death screen, head-up display with weapon and ammo information, sound effects, original score; not to mention it's one of the game's more iconic areas), but the first clip is not bad by any means so I would like to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• The first one, becuase it is shorter which helps it meet non-free use rationale, it demonstrates all that is necessary for the article like the new features: new stealth system, platforming, grappling hook and being able to hide in thick foliage, (which is not demonstrated in the latter) etc. In respone to Rhain, almost all the things mentioned in you rationale are shown in the first one and "iconic area" is irrevant to and entirely subjective. Spy-cicle (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hiding in foliage is actually demonstrated at the beginning of the clip, though to a lesser extent than the first clip. I would argue that the second clip being in an “iconic area” is somewhat relevant, as it is specifically mentioned in a lot of the reviews for the game (though, in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t hugely important to the rationale). – Rhain ☔ 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It feels to me like the second is better. It shows a wider variety of scenarios, where the first spends nearly half of the video in the same situation (hiding in foliage). Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Content changes

@Rhain and Spy-cicle: Can I kindly suggest you both come here and discuss your major changes to the article rather than continuing to revert each other? Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I felt as though some of Spy-cicle’s edits (particularly the reinstating of the awards table) needed immediate reversion rather than waiting for a discussion, but I suppose that isn’t my call to make. – Rhain ☔ 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would not mind discussing some of the changes. Some of these changes reworked destroyed almost all my neccessary contributions as well as other parts like 'Release' hence I reverted some of them. Like splitting out some of the content into other articles which is rather unnessary whilst doing this so quickly see 'no need for haste' WP:HASTE or WP:PROSPLIT. This is not helped by the fact this has all been done just after I nominated the article for GA status.Spy-cicle (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The release section exists as a paragraph in the Development section and as an entire section in the Development article, hence its removal. Also, per this edit and summary, I believe my changes regarding Survival Mode are more than suitable, since it moves the two-sentence paragraph into the preceding one. I never actually removed any mention of the mode, as your summary seems to suggest. I apologise for making these changes after your nomination. I actually hadn't noticed that it was nominated at the time; I thought you were still working on the article and figured I would update it with my edits before it was too late. It was poor timing on my behalf, but the changes were better to be made before the review than after. – Rhain ☔ 12:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ways to improve this article:

- Reimplement the Release section prior to the rework, does not belong in a separate article. - Improve the coverage of the Acoloades section as it fails to mention its table of acoloades bring back table. - Revert back the section around the controversies of the game. First some reason this was removed and does help when trying to get balanced perspective on the game and developement see WP:BALANCE. Spy-cicle (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with these three points.

• The final paragraph of § Development currently covers the Release information as it existed in a more concise manner; any additional information (such as the specific special editions, The Nathan Drake Collection, or the Star Wars previews) is either trivial or covered on the development article.
• The accolades table can be found at List of accolades received by Uncharted 4: A Thief's End. It belongs there, not here.
• The controversies section (which was a bit unnecessary) is now sufficiently covered on the Development article, both in § Character development and § Release trailers.

– Rhain ☔ 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• • On second thought perhaps it would be better to list the acoloades separately
  • The controversies section is however neccessary in order for it to be balanced WP:BALANCE, this is especially true as the game is in generally critcally aclaimed. The article you linked is NOT a policy or MOS. Thus, it deserves to be place on the main article and not a small section scattered across differenct articles.
  • The final paragraph is too concise. The different editions in a table are not needed but its delays, its annoncmenet of its DLC which was turned into an expansion, copies were stolen, the spreading of spoilers amongst other things. Spy-cicle (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you agreeing on the accolades table. I disagree with the controversies section: WP:BALANCE refers to sources contradicting and opposing each other, which is not the case here; it is the case in the Reception section, however, which demonstrates balance in the opinions of reliable sources and refers to several criticisms of the game despite its critical acclaim. As for the release paragraph: I see your point that it is too short, but I still don't believe a separate section is necessary. I've expanded it (and the Development article) to include some more of the information that you mentioned; let me know your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 08:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is not under the heading of controversies I still firmly believe that it should be within the article either under developement or reception. It is a good start we could add a bit more so with the images that were initally there. As for the video I think we should seek consensus before implementing the other clip as the new video hardly demonstrates any stealth becuase the player is caught within the first five seconds. Spy-cicle (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'm actually not sure why I hadn't thought of that earlier; I've implemented the information in the Development section (where I think it flows more naturally). As for the video, I don't think the player needs to be hidden for too long—just long enough to show the stealth mechanics while also demonstrating some of the game's other features. – Rhain ☔ 02:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why PlayStation lifestyle is considered unreliable. It is generally reliable source of infomation. [1]. Spy-cicle (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's more of a discussion for WT:VG/RS, if you want a more conclusive answer. Seems that the discussions were inconclusive, so it's not considered outright unreliable. If you're referring to this edit, the "unreliable source" is Nico Partners and Daniel Ahmad. – Rhain ☔ 23:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The source about the 16 million copies was found on PlayStation Lifestyle and Wholesgame [2] and [link removed] and did not use the 'Nico Partners and Daniel Ahmad' source. Spy-cicle (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the articles; they both cite Ahmad. – Rhain ☔ 13:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. I will adjust this in the List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games article as well. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Survival Mode

WP:PSEUDOHEAD is entirely irrelevant here becuase I am not "abusing semicolon markup". It is often nessarry to have sub headings to separate out sections of articles. But for some reason @Rhain: undid my edit without seeking the talk page.Spy-cicle (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not undo your edit, and I did seek the talk page. A separate section is not necessary for a poorly and incorrectly phrased two sentence paragraph.

Original: "In December 2016, a cooperative survivial mode was released. It features waves of enemies to be defeated with unique objectives, challenges and bosses which can be played with up to three players which gets increasingly get harder with every wave."
My changes: "A cooperative survival mode, released in December 2016, features three players fighting against waves of enemies that continually increase in difficulty."

I believe the latter is far more succinct and correctly phrased. – Rhain ☔ 12:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Rhain there. Popcornduff (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

GAN, edit warring etc

Given the edit warring that has take place over the last four days, I have quick-failed the GA nomination on the grounds of instability, and requested temporary protection of the article for discussions on the content to take place. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)