Talk:List of role-playing video games/Archive 1

Format

• Personally, I think the operating system should be listed next to the title even if it is Windows. This list, when/if complete, will contain many games from older systems. Readers shouldn't need to assume anything about the article, even if most of the games are for Windows right now. Please let me know your opinions. Khsater 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• It seems more appropriate to only indicate where a product deviates from the standard and Windows games certainly seem to be that. This is really to reduce clutter as noting the occasional DOS or Amiga game avoids hundreds of Windows indicators. Streamlining where possible seems like a good way to go. As it is the linked objects give specific system requirements on their pages. The same logic applies when indicating non-English language games. Case in point: should we mark whether a game is CD-Rom or diskette?
• I agree that it seems more appropriate right now to not indicate that a game runs on windows. However, I know that most of the CRPG's aren't for Windows. If you'd like to see what I mean, visit this site: http://www.allgame.com/cg/agg.dll?p=agg&SQL=GLD%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C26 . You will see that most of the listed CRPGs are not for Windows at all. Wikipedia, in the Editting section of Help, suggests that information should be available without clicking on the links; and that links giveare to provide information that would disrupt the flow of the page. In other words, a person should be able to scroll through the list to gather information about CRPGs in general. i.e. "Wow, there are a lot of Commodore64 CRPGs." Khsater 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'll cede the point though I think it's going to make for alot more clutter. Could we maybe include the information sans the bold type, just so that theres a clear distinction between title and system? Or maybe as a sub point (a ** below) although that could make things rather unweildy.
• I'm all for a change in the set format. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, though. Perhaps you could post an example here. The format I chose wasn't based on anything but my own ideas. Thanks for your suggestions! Khsater 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps something like

2400 A.D. DOS (Origin Systems | Origin Systems) (1987) - The system requirement non-bolded, or:

4th Prophecy, The (Vircom) (2001)

• DOS - The system requirement as additional information like with MMORG

• • • That first one looks good to me. Lets use it. Khsater 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Would it be acceptable to include CRPGs from arcades? Some would include the two D&D games and Knights of the Round, all by Capcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.20.230 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking

• Another question: Is it a standard procedure to not make the items of a list, such as this one, into an internal link if there is no article by that name? I'd thought I've seen other lists leave them red. (See: List of Square Enix games It seems like a way to indicate that information about the item on the list is needed. I also see the list as cleaner looking with the red links. Again, Let me know what your thought is. Khsater 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When I added I just copy-and-pasted the layout of another page which did it that way, if thats incorrect then I absolutely agree with you.
• I've been following the naming convention given on other wiki-sites and mobygames but it disagrees with your allgaming one. Just a heads-up that some additions may end up being repeats
  • Thank you for your heads-up. I've been trying to gather information from as many sources as possible at once. For example I use AllGameGuide as a list, then I look it up or search for it on Wikipedia, google, and GameFaqs. Hopefully, the knowledge of Wiki Editors will be able to clear up any duplications or Misnames. Feel free to rename anything as you see fit. I do want to point out that my objective is to provide the title listed on the game itself as the main title. Then, any alternatives can be listed underneath.

Listing seems like a bad idea

Important question for all involved here-- what are the chances of this list being deleted since to some extent it would be redundant with simply clicking a link to the categories, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_and_video_role-playing_games ?

Yes I notice there is some extra info but still I don't want anybody's hard work to be AfD later. Especially given the recent frequency of game article purges for miscellaneous reasons. I'm worried that this may step on the toes of WP:NOT regarding lists. In the case that my fears are unfounded, I'd like to ask if you guys have already seen this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computer_role-playing_games which covers the "big fish" in CRPGs, anything in that chronology should be in this list. Regards, -- Solberg 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

• Thanks for the link, some good stuff there.

Thanks for your concern Solberg. This list of Computer role playing games is just that. It isn't just a list of wikipedia content. Though it doesn't look it now, (Mostly because of my lack of work) there will be large amounts of content not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you want an example of this, go around looking for some older CRPGs. You'll find very few of them are even acknowledged as existing on Wikipedia. Because this list contains information not available on Wikipedia, and is not a "List of definitions" I feel it deserves a spot on Wikipedia until the red links are blue, to put it simply. Furthermore, let me reiterate this: This list does NOT contain Console RPGs, which the link you provided does.

Sorry to talk your ear off. Again, I really do appreciate the concern as I had not read the details about lists on the "not" page, and didnt realize it could possibly be an issue.
Thanks, Khsater 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually more worried about it falling under this category in WP:NOT:

"Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles."

I guess it could count as a structured list after it is mostly complete. Still, just a thing to keep a heads up for. You're right about the category of Computer and Video RPGs, I didn't remember that it contained console RPGs. Is there no category for each type? I suppose not. Anyway, seems like a worthwhile page, if I remember any obscure games that belong here but not on the chronology, I'll come edit this.  :) -- Solberg 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

List needs trimming

There are several independent lists for CRPGs, including List of MMORPGs, Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and others.

this list should aim not to overlap with these lists, but point readers towards them. --ZayZayEM 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Convert to table

I suggest this list be converted to a sortable table such as the ones found here and here. The current list looks very unprofessional and is lacking in the functionality that a sortable table would provide. SharkD 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. SharkD 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove MMORPGs

I suggest that MMORPGs be removed from this list as they already have their own list. SharkD 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps the list should be divided by console, non-online PC, some online content PC, and MMORPG--ZayZayEM 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed them (among other substantial changes). SharkD 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest that chronology of computer role-playing games be merged with this article, as this article can now be sorted chronologically, thereby eliminating the need for the other article. SharkD 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MSX

Should we also list games that were written for the MSX? A lot of these games were later ported to consoles and are considered console RPGs. SharkD 06:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)