Zeppin (8408) on 6/23/2009 11:39 AM · Permalink · Report

I don't think the history is especially important for the description of an individual game. That seems better left to reviews, a collection of trivia items, and the developer's company biography.

That a game was the first to use technology X or something of that nature also seems to be the realm of a trivia item, however that it exists within that game can be mentioned in explaining the gameplay elements that may arise from this.

I'd like to retract any of my claims in advance if an approver or administrator disagrees. :P

Big John WV (26954) on 6/23/2009 3:35 PM · Permalink · Report

Hmmm, to me that would be tricky. There are a good bit of games here that has things like that, but I can understand like in the technology one since the GTA IV description has similar features describing the brand new physics engine as well as Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. I don't see why as long as it's accurate and not biased, such as "Considered the best in terms of the series or it is the game that best utilized this technology", things like that. I have submitted game descriptions like that, some of that has world history which is related to the game or in the case of Terminator: Salvation that describes the events of the previous movies for people who has never seen any of the movies before so they can get some idea of how the events in the game came to be.

Same thing now with a pending description for Ghostbusters, I have it where it has it stating that it is the first game in almost 20 years in the Ghostbusters universe, which is correct since the last game was released back in 1990. Though Extreme Ghostbusters was released a while back on GameBoy, I didn't count it since it's a different part of the Ghostbusters theme.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 6/23/2009 5:08 PM · Permalink · Report

I'm not sure if things like this belong in descriptions. Should we include things like "the first game that uses technology X", or "the last game produced by company X"?

On more than one occasion I've gone off about the multiple stories of a game: the story of its plot when played through, the story of the player's experience playing it, the story of its development and its inspirations leading to that point, and the story of its commercial, critical or popular reception and an extension of its legacy in sequels, clones, or other successors.

As far as I'm concerned they're all fair game for description, provided one can dial back the subjectivity.

Luis Silva (13443) on 6/24/2009 4:22 PM · Permalink · Report

If the information is relevant and fits within the text while keeping it streamlined and objective, I can't see any reasons to cut down on descriptions. On the other hand, if something is not relevant or needs so much detail it distracts the user from getting a quick overview to the game, it should go on trivia or not at all.

Saying AITD is one of the first survival horror games seems crucial to define the game both in gameplay and in terms of history. While it can be argued if it was the "first" or was an "inspiration", it wouldn't harm to have something like "one of the first 'survival horror' themed action-adventure titles, laying down some of the elements that would be later popularized in games such as Resident Evil or Silent Hill". This way, there's no claim on it being the first or an inspiration, while setting the context of the game on the 32-bit gaming picture, and at the same time, gives users a ground for comparison and what to expect from the game.