Jump to content

Talk:Art game/Archives/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Removal of sourced entries

I notice that Okami has just been removed from the list of examples. While I recognize that differences of opinion may exist concerning the categorization of this game as an art game, I'm not sure it benefits the article at all to remove one of the few sourced examples and to replace it with two unsourced ones. I'll leave Okami off the list for now since the list is not intended to be exhaustive, but could people please try to source the entries that are listed with cn-tags? Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The source for Okami seems pretty sketchy, with some guy mentioning it as art in an almost passing way (he also mentions Gears of War as an example, for it's architecture). Okami really doesn't fit the description that the article presents, so I've removed it from the list again. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it might seem that if you know that the a sourced comment is wrong then it should be removed to avoid confusing readers about the truth. In actuality, however, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth but rather verifiability. The fact is that "Okami as an 'art game'" is a verifiable statement whereas your (possibly) true statement that "Okami is not an 'art game'" can only be characterized as original research.
Now you've also brought up the fact that you believe Format Magazine to fall short of the threshold to qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with your assertion that the source is non-reliable. What is your rationale? -Thibbs (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty having a source doesn't automatically qualify something for inclusion. The fact is that Okami doesn't fit the description of an art game that this article presents. If we want to include Okami on this list, we would have to reword the entire article to make it fit. Bad idea.
Art game is an often misused term, and I think the source claiming it is one is confusing "art game" with "artistic game." Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The only requirements are that the source be reliable and verifiable. If a statement meets both of those qualifications the only thing that can be done to keep the information out is to gain consensus that it should be excluded for common sense or miscellaneous other reasons. Considering the definition for "art game" in the lede is "a video game that is designed in such a way as to emphasize art," and considering that the portions you removed described Okami as "a video game created in the sumi-e style," and finally considering that the sumi-e style is a style of art, I think the basic definition is met.
I agree I feel like the game is kind of misplaced among most of the other games here which are typically indie games that lack traditional plots, emphasize a political or social message, and often have seen only limited niche success. I'd be willing to help you form a common sense consensus to exclude the game from the list despite the fact that it is reliably and verifiably listed as an art game, but I think you'll need to do more than just reiterate that you're certain the game doesn't fit the art game genre. Perhaps the lede should be rewritten? -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I still don't feel the source offered is strong enough. Had he gone into great detail about Okami as an art game, listing reasons why, etc. then I'd concede that it should be included on this list. He doesn't do that though, and instead he just casually slips it in, without offering any real reasoning. Granted, that's more than most of the games on the list, but just because the other games are lacking sources, doesn't mean we should use weak sources. I feel like if we include Okami, then we have to include Gears of War, since they're mentioned in the same paragraph as artistic... and that's just silly.
I don't think Electroplankton should be on the list either, but it's got a good source that definitely credits it as such, so I won't make a stink about it. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My only problem with that is the fact that Format Magazine article which you are suggesting isn't reliable enough is actually an interview with authors who write for destructoid.com (listed as a situationally reliable source), n4g.com (unlisted), videogamer.com confirmed reliable), and joystiq.com (situationally reliable). In particular the "some guy" who characterizes Okami as an art game is Ken McKown, a writer for n4g.com and 1UP.com (the very first entry on WP:VG/RS#General). So these aren't just guys they pulled off the streets. The interviewees are established experts on the topic of video games whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Of course this doesn't mean they are infallible. Even experts make mistakes. I would be inclined to agree with you that listing Okami as an art game is more of a mistake than correct, but we need to at least articulate our reason why we think the error was made and I don't think we can make a plausible argument that the source is unreliable. The "Art game" article on Wikipedia, which you believe descriptively bars Okami, is actually primarily based on the Format Magazine article. You have to consider that if we remove Okami under the claim that it is based on unreliable sources, we also have to remove large portions of the "Art game" article (including portions from the lede). I think this would be a mistake.

I was bothered by your suggestion that Mr. McKown had listed Gears of War as an example of an art game since that seems even more far-fetched than Okami, so I reviewed the article and I think you're mischaracterizing his statement. To quote from the Format article:

Ken McKown: An art game is something that stands out for its aesthetic beauty or complexity in design. Good examples of this would be Braid or Okami. Good art can be anything that stands out in a game such as the architecture in a say Gears of War or the fact that no two houses in a Zelda game are identical. Good art in games are the minor details that really stand out and make you appreciate the nuances developers take time to put in there.

I think it is telling that he uses the phrase "a[,] say[,]" to offset his discussion of Gears of War and Zelda from his earlier discussion of Braid and Okami. I think it is quite clear in fact, that while Braid and Okami are identified as "thing[s] that stands out for [their] aesthetic beauty or complexity in design" (i.e. art games), Gears of War and Zelda are identified as simply containing "thing[s] that stand[] out in a game such as the architecture" (i.e. good art). In other words Braid and Okami are art games whereas Gears of War and Zelda are simply examples of games that contain elements of art-game-quality "good art." By using the phrase "a[,] say[,]" Mr. McKown demonstrates that he is talking about a class of games for which Gears of War and Zelda are but examples (this is clear from his use of the unspecific "a"), and that he is talking in offhand generalities (this is clear from his use of the flippant "say"). Here McKown is highlighting the difference between "art games" (e.g. Braid, Okami) and the "game art" they are often characterized by (e.g. elements from Gears of War, elements from Zelda).

I am quite glad I examined this portion, though, because I believe it holds the answer to why both of us are in agreement that Okami is not a very good fit with the article before us. Let's look at McKown's definition of art game again: "An art game is something that stands out for its aesthetic beauty or complexity in design." By stating that the game "stands out," Mr. McKown logically suggests that there is a "rest-of-the-chaff" from which it stands apart. These non-art-games from which the art games may be identified, however, are clearly part of an ever-changing medium. Thus, McKown's definition of "art game" is temporally limited to the present. And therefore his characterization of Okami is one that was perhaps accurate as of November 5th, 2008 (the date of the Format article), but that may not be accurate today. I believe we are in general agreement that it doesn't really fit today. What has changed since November 5th, 2008? I'm not really sure. Perhaps the quality of art in the non-art-games has risen to the point where Okami has been diluted out of the genre as no longer "standing out" for its art (a valid reason to strike it from the article). After all, the Format article was written only months after the game's release on the Wii and so it is possible that while the game may have been artistically boundary-pushing, critical recognition of it as an "art game" may have been affected by its novelty of release. Perhaps attitudes have simply changed to the point where, due to familiarity with the game, it no longer "stands out" in our estimation (an invalid reason to strike it from the article). Anyway I think this inherent temporal limitation of Mr. McKown's definition should be our basic reason for excluding the game from the list if we decide as much rather than the assumption that the source is weak/unreliable. Does this sound like a good reason to you? -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Seems quite reasonable. Nicely done, and good discussing with you. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers -Thibbs (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries

I've removed the following examples from the list of examples of art games.

  • Seven Minutes (2008, PC) - Platformer as nihilist philosophy.
  • Pathologic - a video game by the Ice-Pick Lodge studio, that explores the survival of healers in a dying city.
  • Tension - survival-adventure video game, also developed by the Ice-Pick Lodge studio, depicting surreal world of Void. Every action in the game (except simple moving) is done via drawing.
  • RPG Triptych - Last Intervention - RPG Triptych [1] is a role-playing art game in the style of 1990s Japanese RPGs created by artist Samson Young [2], featuring philosophical conversations from Jean Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies. Featured in October Contemporary 2009 in Hong Kong [3], and Prospectives09 International Digital Art Festival at the University of Neveda. [4]

These games have been listed as "citation needed" for over a year now and it appears unlikely that any citations will be forthcoming. If any editor wishes to re-insert them then proper sources indicating that the games have been referred to as "art games" or "arthouse games" would be necessary. In addition, I would suggest that interested editors begin to consider how to limit the list of examples considering that it is rather on the large side now and is bound to only continue to grow. One possibility would be to limit the list to games that have won prizes or have been featured in art exhibits or other notable achievements. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a good call, and I agree that the list is still too long. In fact, we might want to consider getting rid of the list altogether (wikipedia hates lists), and turn it into a prose section, talking about notable examples and specifically why they are considered art games, rather than just the title and a brief description. This would help filter out a lot of unnecessary titles, since we'd be looking for sources that describe WHY they are art games, and not just saying they are without explanation. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not that WP hates lists, but there are certain types of lists that are better as prose. That said, what I'd recommend is actually a table, with game name, developer, publisher, system, year, and a brief rational for its art-gamey-ness. This table would be at the end of the article, but the prose can mention games already in the table, etc. to provide better background. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Myst

What about MYST or RIVEN? They are certainly art, especially when DOOM was the other big hit of 1993. Endlessmug (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the game art in Myst and Riven was spectacular for its day. But there's a difference between game art and art games. See art game versus game art. To include Myst or Riven as an example of an art game we'd need solid sourcing indicating that either game is considered an "art game"/"arthouse game" or something equivalent. -Thibbs (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Invaders! release date

The article currently has it listed as 2002, but I can't find any material to back that up. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What to do with the "Examples" subsection

Lately this portion of the article seems to have become problematic. As a bare list of examples of art games, there isn't much guidance as to what is appropriate to include and what isn't. Obviously it's inappropriate to list all art games in this subsection since then we'd basically be talking about an unbounded list, so how should we address this? One idea is to provide a brief (1-2 sentence) header for this subsection limiting the list to a set number of the best-known, most-notable, or otherwise defining examples of the genre. This might be difficult to define, however, and the only real way to achieve this would be to have the list of examples defined by local consensus. Another idea is just to get rid of the subsection entirely and instead to transfer those games into inline reporting under the "history" subsection. The games that don't fit into "history" could simply be categorized under Category:Art games and removed. Which plan sounds better? Are there any other solutions I haven't thought of? -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We should list a few examples, and then possibly consider if a "List of art games" makes sense, though certainly highly a category for art games. But the examples should be obvious with significant RS describing them as such to be included as an example. the MGS2 entry is stretching the truth compared to others. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm for doing away with the list altogether. Other game genre articles generally don't include such lists, and instead incorporate notable examples into prose (in a history section or whatever is appropriate), and I feel that's the best course of action for this article. A major problem with the list, and in fact the article in general, is that most people don't know what an art game is, and reviewers will frequently apply the label to artistic games (Okami, MGS2, etc). Most of these citations come from video game reviews, but are these sources reliable? Clearly they're reliable when dealing with video games, but what do they really know about art? It seems kind of like citing a baseball commentator on the impressionism page (hyperbole, but you see where I'm going). One possible solution would be to only accept sources from notable ART critics, rather than GAME critics, though we might then find the problem there simply aren't enough notable sources from the art community talking about art games. Just sort of thinking out loud here. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds best to me as well. I think it would be difficult to provide a good objective definition of the "elevated notability" that would earn a game a spot in a "notable examples" list. In modern times video game coverage is often wide enough that we'd be asking for more notability than the Wikipedia guidelines. Even if heightened standards were applied we'd only be slowing the growth of what amounts to a potentially infinite list. So unless there are objections, let's shift the list here into talk pending a proper merge of the material to a "history" section. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thumbs up. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OK I've shifted them into a subsection below. Some of them are more important to the history and development of the genre than others so I think that some of them should really be restored to the article in the form of a history section. The sources all seem pretty good so they could easily be reused for the article mainspace. Other members of the blow list, however, appear to be much less important to the history of the genre and so including them would probably violate WP:UNDUE. Anyway I think this should clear up a lot of the problems of the list growing unmanageably huge. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Examples of games in the art game genre include:

Rez

I believe Rez/Rez HD (and the spiritual sequel Children of Eden) are heavily considered artistic, and perhaps could use an honorable mention on this page? ProjectPlatinum 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectPlatinum (talk • contribs)

I agree, but there has to be reliable sources claiming it as an art game (and not just "artistic") --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd also be cautious about adding Child of Eden yet since as far as I know it hasn't been released. -Thibbs (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Someone might want to add "The Company of Myself" to the list. --109.186.9.50 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.93.74 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-sourced additions to the list of art games

This article is actually a split from Video games as art and as such there are issues with the embedded list of art games that have been discussed there and that represent a consensus approach to editing this article now. Specifically, see Talk:Video games as art#Removal of sourced entries and Talk:Video games as art#Removing unsourced entries and Talk:Video games as art#What to do with the "Examples" subsection for important discussions regarding why sources are necessary for the this list. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

what about an actual art game like Mario Paint?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.152.78 (talk)
The addition of Mario Paint would also require sources for the reasons listed in talk above. I think it's a nonstarter, though. Although it allows user-creation of "game art," Mario Paint is more of a nongame software tool or utility that has been dressed up to be a game than an "art game." See Art game (disambiguation) for clarification on the difference between "art game" and "game art." -Thibbs (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Games requiring a reliable source calling it "art"

There is actually an argument that all games are art so I think it's more important to find a source actually calling Grim Fandango an "art game". The same goes for Killer7's source (gamescanbeart.com) which simply describes it as "art" instead of an "art game" or an "arthouse game" - the specific term defined by this article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The same is also true for Riven which was just added. The source claims "Art, finally, is what Riven approaches" and does not suggest that the game is an "art game." A basic analogy can be drawn to "art films". Even though a film like The Matrix may be fairly described as art, there's a huge difference between a mass-appeal Hollywood spectacular like The Matrix and an actual art film like Rose Hobart or the 1964 Empire. Those are strongly juxtaposed examples and of course there are plenty of other less navel-gazing films that kind of straddle the line between attempted blockbuster and arthouse, but you can't just find a source describing the lush backdrops of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as "elevating the film to new artistic heights" and assume that this means it's an arthouse film. It's not. The Myst games clearly make use of artistic elements and they are great examples of games as art, but they aren't "art games" unless they are directly described as such by the RSes. They may be as much "art" as other games that are art, but I'm not sure they're particularly comparable to actual art games like Every Day the Same Dream or Passage. On the other hand, if sources can be found that show them to be "art games" rather than simply "games that are art" then I shut my mouth. But explicit RS claims are necessary here. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem with both the definition and the selection criteria - few or no sources are using the specific words "art game" to describe games that are considered art; the few that do, I suspect are doing so influenced be the title of this article. If you enforced the strictest interpretation of the current criterion you'd have like three games in the list or so. The current list (including Myst) compiles "games designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience", which can be supported by sources more easily, but that still requires something more than just describing the artistic heights of its production values; the context of the review must be explicitly about games as art. Diego (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not accurate. The majority of the games in the list at present have sources that describe them as "art games" or "arthouse games" (although several newer additions are steadily diluting this). This article was also created December 2011 and by my count only 14 of the 59 sources post-date it's creation. I can see no evidence at all of WP:CIRCULAR but if any of the sources make reference to the Wikipedia article as their sole basis for conferring the term then they should be removed. The problem with editors interpreting the phrase "games designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience" to describe games that the RSes don't actually call "art games" is that this is original research. The term is so vague that any game fits the description. What game designer creates a game hoping for no reaction from the audience? The definition is suggestive and properly sourced in the context of "art games" so I'm not saying it should be removed, but it's certainly not sufficient to rely on to conduct original research regarding definition of a game's genre.
Within the industry there is a distinct meaning to "art game" which makes it more comparable to "art film". I really think this analogy is a good one. Art games are typically indie games that are of only niche interest and that are intended as vehicles for artistic messages. Although the art game aesthetic has arguably pierced into some mainstream titles today, and although the Roger Ebert business has provoked many to re-examine all sorts of old games and to describe them as art or to highlight their artistic elements in the context of traditional art, true "arthouse games" are actually rather uncommon because they are frequently created without regard for commercial success and so the list here will naturally be relatively short. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note - I still think it would be best as a companion list to this article instead of an embedded list, though, since as time goes on more and more art games are made and the list will eventually start to overwhelm the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to have two lists: one for games that are specifically considered "art house" ala "art film" games - a distinction that is going to be made more on the developer's side than the reception side - and a second list for "games considered examples of video games as art" - eg Grim Fandango, etc. By their nature, all art house films would be in this second list, but I would not include them in both but have a callout in the second list to the first. ("Art games are also considered examples of games as art, and examples are listed here."). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea for the list article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same. So if the three of us agree, it has to be a good idea. Diego (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Split list

Ok, I've split the list among the lines of the conversation above. I've been ruthless with the inclusion criterion and moved to the new list at Video games as art absolutely everything that wasn't described with the exact words "art game", "art videogame" or "arthouse game" within the available sources.

This is likely to have produced some false positives (The Path?), but that's what was agreed upon, and I hope it illustrates the problem that I was talking about above with using a criterion that's too strict. If you want to move some games back from there to here, be prepare to find a source using the magic words to define the game, or to explain why the game should be listed here without them. Diego (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, the next step should be to dig through the article's history and recover any sourced artistic games that were still deleted for not being an "arthouse game", and place them at the other list. Diego (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And I've moved The Path back here. It wasn't difficult, but it wasn't sourced as an art game with the previous reference. I hope this exercise will serve to clarify the exact criterion by which games can be listed, and to improve the available sources. Diego (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a great start to me. There may yet need to be some tweaks like that which you identified for "The Path", but thanks for the effort Diego! -Thibbs (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hotline Miami

Hotline Miami should be considered for this list. It's being extensivly discussed and analyzied in both the game community and media. For example: http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=424
81.234.243.219 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the list is already too long. Aside from the problem of editors adding in unsourced entries and the fact that many of the sources are not listed as RSes, the designation of particular games as "art games" (RS or no) is often controversial and as such the limited benefit of having the non-prose and thus less-explained list in this article in the first place is undermined by the unneeded controversy it creates.
The prior consensus was to remove this portion of the article as it has the potential to become very large and overwhelm the rest of the article. This is in fact what is currently happening. Given that there seems to be strong interest in listing games as "art games" rather than just using the category I'd like to again propose that:
  • We should incorporate the truly important art games (first few art games, particularly genre-defining or controversial art games, art games provoking commentary from the non-game world - particularly in terms of art-funding organizations, etc.) into a prose history section and
  • I'd also endorse Masem's suggestion above that a sourced list of art games could be split from this one together with #Examples from above.
81.234.243.219's suggestion to add Hotline Miami to the list of art games may be OK if RSes can be uncovered to indicate that it is an "art game," but I think it would be best to add it to a new List of art games article. Any thoughts? I'll start research on a prose-style history section for this article either way. -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We could al-- oh wait, you said my suggestion already :) As long as the requirement to be on the list is "a reliable source defining said game as an "art game") (as opposed to a game just notable for its art), we're golden. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK so I was just about to make the split now (to shift the embedded list to here), but considering that there has been some resistance to the idea in the past I reconsidered and I now think that the best thing to do is to use WP:SIZESPLIT as the brightline. Right now the article is ~45k including the list. I say that we wait until 50k per SIZESPLIT and then go for it. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"History" section

I realize I'm going slowly with this, but one of my stumbling blocks has been in trying to think of a way to complete elements of the split that were imperfectly carried out just over a year ago. An "art game"-heavy history section already exists at Games as art#History, and I've been trying to think of a way to use this material as a starting point without being redundant to that article. But now I'm thinking that the best way may be to simply move the "art game" material here and to refocus the history section there on the debate that is the topic of that article. Obviously some mention of art games should appear in the history section of the "games as art" article, but I don't know if it's appropriate for them to be primary focus. Likewise we wouldn't import historical info like the National Endowment for the Arts' recognition or the US Supreme Court case since they relate to "games as art" but not to "art games". But otherwise, I think the two middle paragraphs and some of the first paragraph should be shifted here. Any thoughts on this suggestion? -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, part of that section could be moved here. Just give it a try and lets do some editing on it. Diego (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
OK I shifted over the top part (first 3 paragraphs) of the history section from games as art, but cutting it from the history section there would leave it in quite shabby shape. I'll try to rework the section therewhen I have some time. Right now my internet connection is behaving very poorly... -Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Experimental games

Seeing games like Synth (video game),[35] that have an experimental approach but aren't classified as "art", maybe there should also be a category for experimental video games? Diego (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the term used descriptively, but is it a stably defined expression in its own right? In other words will the experimental games of today still be considered experimental in the future or is the expression limited to the time period in which it is used? If it's a stably defined expression then I think it makes sense to make a category like this. Otherwise there could potentially be room for a small discussion of the related term as a tangent within this article. I feel the same way about games that have been commissioned for or displayed in art exhibitions at art museums. -Thibbs (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The term "Experimental Gameplay" is certainly used with some frequency, and Google books shows a good deal of interesting results for that and ""Experimental game". I think the best place to discuss it would be at Game design, but frankly the game-art articles are in better shape and have more active discussion. There's also some overlap with this article, as art games do tend to include experimental gameplay. Diego (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to include

Place below those games that have potential to be included (clearly are artistic experiences by independent developers, but doesn't currently have known reliable sources classifying them) - in the future, maybe someone describes a source that allows us to include them. Compiling all suggestions at one place will help editors to review them from time to time. Diego (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There is a large list of art games presented here. I'm fairly certain RSes could be found from the art world to cover most of these. -Thibbs (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's another long list of potential candidates for the list. -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In 2007, indiegames.com (an RS) cofounder Tim W. published this article which links to his personal website where he lists his personal 27 top art games (here at mentisworks.org). He also links to Kristine Ploug's 16-member list from 2005 at Artificial.dk (here). I think a fair argument could be made that the mentisworks link is an RS since the author is significant. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Since there is the argument that an art game is defined by artistic intent, the authors of these games might play an important part in determining if they are "art games" or not. So this is Jason Nelson's Gamasutra Blog where he describes several of his games that are not currently on the list as "art games". Not sure if this works as an WP:SPS on the topic of itself of not. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • games from Kenta Cho and Oohara Yuuma (these games are really good, and very closely related to the art game definition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.84.58 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope problems created by the RSes - How do we deal with "art mods"?

In looking for a formal definition of the "art game" I found myself scraping for sources within the gaming community. There is interest in the term, and a lot of debate about whether it's a useful term or whether games can even be art in the first place, but there is very little in the way of a definition. Turning to sources from the art community I was much more successful. There are several formal definitions of the term coming from apparently well-respected fore-runners of the genre. I've tried to introduce the more important definitions to this WP article now, but the definitions introduce problems for the scope of this article.

Essentially what I find is that whereas the gaming community is apt to blur the lines between art games and the concept of games as art, the art community is prone to blurring the line between art game and video game art. This is a more difficult knot to unravel than "art game vs. games as art" because instead of differentiating thing from concept, we're differentiating between thing and thing. And there are really two problems with the formal definitions of "art game" that I've seen. The first is over-broad definitions that essentially equate the two concepts (i.e. If it's art and it's based on, derived from, making reference to, or looks like a video game then it is "art game"/"game art"). And the second is centered on the classification of the "art mod" (i.e. is it a game or is it just an artistic alteration?). Some of the more useful definitions I have seen use interactivity as the dividing line between the "art game" and "game art", and artistic intent as the dividing line between "art games" and regular games fitting the concept of "games as art". However there are still problems with the art mod, since art mods can be either interactive or non-interactive, and often fall somewhere in the middle (i.e. as interactive, but kaleidoscopic and barely playable experiences).

What this all means is that simple reliance on RSes isn't good enough to settle the question of the scope of this article. Instead I think we need to find a local consensus. Given that the view recognizing "art game" extremely broadly seems to be in the minority I think it's a good idea to use interactivity as the dividing line per the Rebecca Cannon and John Sharp definitions. But for the "art mod" I'm torn. I see the following options:

  1. All art mods are "art games"
  2. All art mods are "video game art"
  3. Interactive art mods (even barely-playable ones) are "art games" and non-interactive art mods (aka basically machinima) are "video game art"

I think it's important that we should have some sort of basic consensus on this. Are there any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is really only an issue for the list since the prose part of the article can (and I think does) discuss all notable perspectives on this issue. For now maybe sticking with the basic "if the RS says it's an art game then it's an art game" rule will work as the inclusion criterion for the list, but this issue may have to be resolved down the road if the list gets too long. Or we could just split it. Whatever works. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Super Columbine Massacre RPG

How is Super Columbine Massacre RPG an art game? It seems more fitting to call it an Exploitation Game or a Troll Game.

At Wikipedia we use reliable sources to support claims made in articles. If you look at the entry for "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" you can see two little numbers listed as superscripts (currently they are labeled as "[41]" and "[42]"). These numbers represent sources that are linked below. So if you click on the number it will bring you down to the sources where the corresponding source should be linked. In this case we have two sources. By reading the first source, we can see that indie game developer, Jason Rohrer, thinks that "the bottom line for SCMRPG is that it saddens us, disturbs us, puzzles us, and makes us think. It's a nice example of an art game and a perfect example of why we need independent games (because no publisher would ever fund something like this)." And then if we look at the second source we see that indie developer and Slamdance 2007 judge, Joe Bourrie "fully support the juries decision to add this Art Game [Super Columbine Massacre RPG] to the [Slamdance] roster. It breaks ground that no other game has touched, and just the fact that we are talking about it right now means that it has a strong effect on players."
So from reading these two we can see that the game has repeatedly been called an art game by reliable sources, and it looks like the general rationale is that because it moves the audience emotionally and forces them to think, and because this was the intent of the game's designer, it is a work of art as social commentary just as Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary are considered art even though they also could be labeled an "exploitation pieces" or "troll works".
Now of course this is just my personal interpretation of what the reliable sources are trying to say regarding Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but this Wikipedia article doesn't make any of those claims. By listing the game as an art game the article is merely saying that it has been identified by reliable sources as an art game. There's no reason within this article to try to come up with a rationale for how it fits the definition. Does that help? I know some people find the issue of sources to be kind of confusing at first, so it might help to read through this explanation if I wasn't clear. -Thibbs (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And to not get into too many details that don't apply to improving the article, the reason SCM RPG is considered art is that it deconstructs the kneejerk reaction that the media had to the Columbine shootings that wanted to poke fingers at video games as the cause, providing a re-interpretation of events to mock this. It may be considered trolling, but some traditional art pieces were crafted in the same mocking manner. As Thibbs points out, as long as sources claim this as an art game, we are otherwise not to judge. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I am (as you can tell) a novice editor and researcher. I will definitely check those sources out. Sometimes I succumb to moral panic too easily. I guess it's the "conservative" in me ConnerFields (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields)

It's ok. The main point I guess is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a stand on whether or not something is a certain way. The whole place is supposed to be built around neutrally summarizing and clearly presenting the claims of reliable third-party sources. If you need any help learning the ropes, by the way, make sure you check out the Tea Room where friendly and experienced editors are on hand to help new folks with problems and questions. And welcome! -Thibbs (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Skyward Sword be added...?

The game's artstyle takes inspiration from watercolor drawings...what makes it less of an art game than Okami? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.46.153 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to this list instead. It will need reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

LSD Dream Emulator

LSD Dream Emulator seems like a good example of an art game. It's surrealistic (based on the dream world). It is based on a dream journal, and came with a companion book, and music album.-ConnerFields (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.240.241 (talk)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to this list instead. It will need reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that as long as there is one reliable reference to support including a game on this list, there is a good chance (but not required) that the game may be notable, and so while a game is a red line or a link to a section of a larger article, there's no need to remove such games. For example, "Passage" presently is only given a section on Rorher's article, because there's little else to say about the game to make a full article, but it is clearly an Art Game (maybe the first game in the last few years to bring this area of games to light). The sources for a game can be questioned but as long as its a reasonable source, the game can be included on this list. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. To address the redlink issue though, since it is flagged, I don't think there'd be too much of a problem in delinking redlinks that seem unlikely to ever become full articles. For items where the game and the developer are bother redlinked, for example, it might not be unreasonable to delink one or the other if it looks like one would only ultimately serve as a redirect to the other. For example, it's quite possible that "a_maze@getty.edu" would only ever be a redirect to a "Tiffany Holmes" article where the game could be discussed in context with the artist. Apart from that, I guess the only strategy to reduce redlinks is to actually create the articles. I may take a swing at some of the ones I'm more interested in some time after August when I have a bit more free time. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. The existence of a reliable source is to establish solely that the information can be reliable sourced, not that the information is notable enough to be used. As an admittedly wild example, I can reliably source the fact that Obama is the President of the United States. That does not mean, however, that the information is notable enough for inclusion on *this* article. Articles or sections that are long lists quite routinely use the existence of a Wikipedia article on the topic as a litmus test for whether it meets a base level of notability to be included on a list elsewhere.
Lists like this are never supposed to be exhaustive lists. That's what your argument would require: anything that can be proven to be true on this topic must be included. That's horribly impractical and just gets space taken up by trivia. So if you reject this standard criteria used throughout Wikipedia as a way of judging what should be included and what should not, what do you propose as an alternate criteria? Anything you can source which anyone who comes here feels like adding? If so, it sounds like what you want a category page, not a list on an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article as it current stands violates WP:NOT policy, as it includes a huge list of indiscriminate information. I have therefore tagged it as such. This issue is separate from the problem with red links, as even if we removed all the redlinks there would still be too much trivia here for a subsection on an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Indiscriminate? Surely you mean indiscriminate apart from the requirement that the games must be reliably sourced "art games" as explained several times throughout the article, right? I mean your thoughts do sound good to me in general, DreamGuy, because that's usually the way I like to handle lists myself. But I've been involved with a great many discussions over list inclusion criteria and I can tell you that there is no such rule that lists must be restricted to bluelinked members only. If by consensus it is agreed that the inclusion criteria should require notability and that bluelinks should act as a proxy for notability then that's one thing, but no such consensus exists at this article. In fact the opposite is true. Check the talk page. At present this is intended as an exhaustive list and exhaustive lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reverted the listcruft tag you added since it was misleading (i.e. there is nothing poorly defined, unverified, or indiscriminate about the list. All entries have sources and all sources make direct claims that the games are "art games" or "arthouse games". Some relatively in depth research went into this article and this list does actually hit the majority of games described as art games by the RSes). From your edit summary I think what you really want to be doing is proposing a split. If you read the talk page above I think you'll see we've discussed this in the past. For the record, I'd still be in favor of a split. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thibbs is right. While blue-linked/proper articles can be used to restrict contents of lists (often the case for "List of people from X"), that's an option, not a requirement. And again, I stress - because we are requiring one source to be on this list, there is potential all of these current red-links could be blue links. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since User:DreamGuy has blanked (as "complete nonsense") the note I left on his talk page explaining that this page is not an unmaintained pile of cruft, and he's opted to reinstate the listcruft tag, I feel it's pertinent to address the impropriety of this tag directly. Let's start by taking notice of the fact that the article underwent a major overhaul and expansion last February. Since then we've had 9 goodfaith additions to the list and 8 reversions for failure to meet the inclusion criteria. So in the last 6 months we've seen this admittedly long list grow by exactly 1 member. In addition, disclaimer notes have been added to the list sections in several places and tweaked to clearly delineate the inclusion conditions. Thus an editor adding to the list will see this note (repeated no less than 8 times):

  • "Only include games that have been explicitly described by reliable sources to be 'art games', and provide a reference for the source. Other games with a strong artistic element can be put on the related list in the 'Video games as an art form' article."

The reason the listcruft tag has been removed is that it characterizes the list as "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" and this is simply false on its face. Let's break it down:

  • "poorly defined" - The definition of this list is this: "video games described as art games or arthouse games by game designers or critics". This is further clarified by the disclaimer notes bulleted above. In short the definition is quite clear and the article history shows that it is obviously maintained.
  • "unverified" - The inclusion criteria clearly say "by game designers or critics" and "explicitly described by reliable sources". Every item on the list is supported by a source that has been checked for verification - usually by several editors. Unverified items are routinely removed from the list upon their addition. I'd humbly submit that this is probably one of the best-sourced lists among those covered by WP:VG.
  • "indiscriminate" - Currently the items on this list must be (1) video games, (2) "art games", (3) verified by sources, and (4) the sources must be reliable. Apart from the clearly limiting definition, and the clearly limiting requirement for explicit RS verification, I'm not sure how else the list should be limited. Is this just a fancy way of saying that it's a long list? It's clearly a long list and it seeks to be complete within the confines of its restrictive definition, but it's not indiscriminate by any means.

I hope that clarifies the issue. Again, if overall length is the issue then there are certainly better ways to address it than deleting the list in its entirety or hoping to arbitrarily slash verifiable list members. -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the argument DreamGuy's used that if these were on a separate list article it would be okay, but that breaks down DG's original point - the list either is or isn't indiscriminate whether it is part of this article or a standalone. Yes, length might be an issue but I don't think we're close to a point where it must be split off. Every point that Thibbs explains is spot on as to why this is a reasonable list and why it is okay to leave red links. I point out again because of the fact these games have a source to be on here, that means there is a reasonable likelihood of being notable and the fact they are red links simply means someone hasn't gotten around to writing the articles to support them. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the idea of a split in the last few days. My initial feeling was that it should definitely be split, but now I'm not as certain. There is something about the list that is helpful to a full encyclopedic understanding of the topic: It provides a handy means to see the chronology of the varying kinds of art game from the early wave in the early 80s to the re-emergence in the late 90s and finally to the indie art game explosion in the late 2000s peaking in 2008. The granularity is rough since we've limited it to games with RS coverage, but it provides a basic timeline for which other chronological events like the video game crash of the early 80s can then provide interesting context for the informed reader. If and when we get to the point where it's simply too long then I think a split is inevitable, but for now it might be worth considering the benefits that an embedded list can provide here. Just a thought. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I move red link discussions should continue below at #MoS linking.

Because "black links" do not signify the product of a discussion, neither should 65 red links in one article signify 65 reasons for 65 items inclusion. Lists make excellent what is over-linking elsewhere, but their excellence is in blue.

Simply, red links are being abused. More to the point, they are being used to hold information they were not designed to hold. They could hold it anyway. Even so, never will such a hoard (as could shocked the newcomer admin) un-cloud the notability or reliability issue, nor should should classifying as over-linking (link counts) usually involve the subject of splitting or sectioning of articles. References to discussions or guidelines are often just as cloudy. It's simple. There are too many red links.

Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time. Unfortunately on Wikipedia teamwork edit-sessions are scarce; indeed unless there is something, say "WikiProject cleanup" going on, the list of red links here may just grow of course because there is not enough follow-through after the red link "assignments" made by an army of one.

The red army appears to me to have wasted its time because I am here to help clean things up per the category and template efforts. Please see #MoS linking below, where I'm offering some ideas and some services to back them up with. — CpiralCpiral 19:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a very hard time taking seriously your claim that "Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time." Are you seriously suggesting that the reliable sources used in the list represent a waste of time? Anyway I agree that we should discuss the delinking of redlinks in the #MoS linking section below rather than in this months-old thread which might otherwise escape the notice of contributors to the article. I also hope you'll consider adopting a more civil tone. Calling your fellow editors "the red army" isn't conducive to any sort of collegial atmosphere. -Thibbs (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of several criticisms of the term "art game"

It's clear from our discussion at Talk:Video games as an art form that hahnchen believes Alex Kierkegaard to fall below the threshold for citing. I believe this is the basis for the recent removal of several lines of this article. I'm certain hahnchen is aware that there are those who disagree with his assessment so I'm surprised to see this unilateral decision on his part, but setting that aside, I think he has a point with regard to one of the criticisms. Specifically, Kierkegaard's claim that "art games that subvert or deconstruct the classical video game form represent decadence and are a degenerate artform". As far as I've seen this view is unique to Kierkegaard and is pretty fringey. Frankly most critics have better sense than to evoke language last seen in Nazi Germany even if it would makes them sound more like Nietzsche. So I agree with hahnchen as to the removal of that line. The others are more commonly-held beliefs and additional sources could almost certainly be located. This doesn't mean that I agree with stripping out the Kierkegaard source, though. -Thibbs (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite short of time currently and won't really be able to do much at all in terms of searching for additional RSes as corroboratory evidence for the two claims that are currently supported by the Kierkegaard book alone. I've suggested to hahnchen that his concerns over fringe ideas could be eliminated by moving those two claims into talk until further sources can be located. I think that the Kierkegaard refs should be left in place where they are backed up by other RSes, though, because it's been demonstrated that he's been cited by numerous 3rd party RSes and there can be no legitimate concern of fringe in cases where his refs are only backing up other RSes. As yet hahnchen is still maintaining his position that the only thing he will be satisfied with is complete removal of all mention of Kierkegaard so this compromise is effectively rejected, but I wanted to bring it up here as a suggestion that I think might provide a good way forward. I hope fresh eyes can consider the suggestion on its merits. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
OK well I did a little bit of reffing just now, but we need more. This criticism section should really be expanded if possible since it is just a bulleted list of grievances right now. I added the criticism that "art games aren't games" per hahnchen's suggestion at the "games as art" article. Whereas the Kierkegaard source provides a large number of criticisms all in one document, the other RSes are much more diffuse in their critiques and so it will take a bit of time to sift through them properly. I'll get on that when I have a bit more time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss fringe claims and claims given undue prominence

I'm confused about how the criticism section's problems could run no deeper than the Kierkegaard source alone. During the past few weeks Hahnchen has repeatedly argued that the Kierkegaard source was being used to support fringe theories and to give undue prominence to his theories. Simply removing the Kierkegaard refs couldn't address this complaint as the actual claims are still exactly as they were before Hahnchen became involved. What would be helpful would be if the specific problematic (fringe or undue) theories that were referred to in the last few weeks were at last identified and discussed for removal per User:Czar's suggested compromise at WT:VG. Can you actually identify any fringe/undue claims, Hahnchen? I'm eager to get started adding corroboratory sources and removing actual fringe claims. -Thibbs (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, I am not Hahnchen, but let me lay out the problem as I see it and without specific reference to Wikipedia policies at the moment because that keeps it simple. People are opinionated. We all have a viewpoint based on our individual experiences, and many of us feel the need to express said viewpoint. Most of us, however, are not great thinkers. Maybe we are uneducated on a topic, maybe we let our biases cloud our judgement, maybe we are just drooling idiots that cannot form a rational argument. Whatever the reason may be for any particular individual, I think we can all agree that not all opinions or ideas are created equal.
So how to we as a species tell the good ideas from the bad? We subject them to scrutiny. We train people that have the aptitude for critical analysis and rhetoric and set them loose to poke at each other's theories. Since areas like art criticism or philosophy are inherently subjective, we naturally end up with competing theories and then turn loose another set of experts good at classification to identify common elements of certain opinions and organize them into schools of thought. Then we let all these experts endlessly argue their points until there is near universal agreement or no one cares anymore and the ideas fall by the wayside. That is basically what academia spends all its time doing, to oversimplify a bit for the purpose of clarity.
So what does this mean for Kierkagaard? Well, it means that theories and ideas only gain credence when they are widely discussed, exhibit some level of support from experts in the field, and have garnered enough notoriety to warrant peer review and publication. This is the only objective way to determine which individuals have contributed something important to our collective understanding of the world, regardless of whether they are actually "right" or "wrong" in their beliefs. Without holding to this standard, every blog, letter to the editor, call-in to a program, or forum post has to be accepted as equally valid, and my theories on how the universe works become as relevant to the conversation as Einstein's, which I assume we can all agree would be laughable. Kierkagaard has been the subject of no scrutiny. His self-published work has not been subjected to analysis or criticism. Few, if any, scholars are debating the merits of his ideas or building on them in their own work. Blogs and journalists mention him from time to time, but do not actually bother to seriously engage with his ideas. To all appearances he is just one man with an opinion, which makes him just like any of the several billion other people inhabiting this planet. Responsible scholarship --and Wikipedia policy -- requires more. Indrian (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I do see evidence that some of Kierkagaard's ideas have been examined, considered, and analyzed/expanded upon by several RSes. The fact that he has a certain level of exposure in reliable sources - some couple dozen citations at least - was central to the decision to add the source in the first place along with the fact that his coverage of the topic of art game criticism amounts to a 104-page book rather than a few paragraphs as we see with the coverage from the other RSes. The reason he was selected as a reference was not completely haphazard or without regard for WP:RS. I've been actively participating at WP:VG/RS since March of last year and I can tell you that in general dozens of RS citations (journalistic and academic) and praise from 4 or 5 notable journalists is sufficient to make out the prima facie case for reliability. I've personally never seen a case where more than 15 RS source citations were needed to establish the bona fides of a source under discussion. I'm confident I could locate double that amount pretty easily, precisely because he's received a degree of exposure that belies the "internet no-one" honorific recently bestowed upon him here. The determination of any source as reliable is a judgment call of course and I accept the fact that you and hahnchen think this source falls short. It seems that no amount of evidence to the contrary is able to change this view.
But I guess what I am confused about is how simply removing the references to Kierkegaard (like this) addresses the problem of his fringe theories or unduly prominent theories. Hahnchen is fond of comparing Kierkegaard to Gene Ray, founder of the pseudoscience Time Cube theory. Imagine if the article on "time" were edited to include the line "When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth" with a citation to Gene Ray. Simply removing the citation would not solve the problem because the fringe theory would remain. For weeks the argument has been made that this article ("art game") contains fringe theories attributed to Kierkegaard. Shouldn't we discuss which ones those are and determine if they should be removed? The same goes for theories that have been give undue prominence (the other major argument made against claims reffed using the Kierkegaard source). -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree that we are trying to present opinions and not trying to promote any one over another, compared to what typically happens in fringe theories where editors trying to promote the fringe theory elevate it to try to make it "truth". Just having what various opinions that exist in the "video games as art" arena, as long as others have identified that as a possible opinion. This is a far cry from including fringe theories and trying to promote them as fact. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hahnchen is the one worried about fringe theories; I am worried about credibility. Anyone can create a blog and self publish a book and get an opinion out there. That does not make that opinion worthy of attention. Neither does a person being mentioned in blogs from time to time. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Thibbs, you have yet to provide sources that actually analyze what he is saying rather than just mentioning that he said something. A blog post or two from a site that needs to constantly post articles to generate hits is not significant coverage within the context of said blog's total output. Unless we actually have sufficient reliable sources declaring Kierkagaard an expert or acknowledging his original thought as significant then all we have is a Wikipedia editor's opinion that Kierkagaard is significant. We are not allowed to make those judgment calls. Show me some sources that certify him as an expert rather than just acknowledging that he exists, and I will have no problem with his inclusion. Indrian (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that your use of the phrase "a blog post or two" is intended here to discredit normal RSes like Kotaku, GameSetWatch, Joystiq, Siliconera, etc. It also suggests that you have discounted all of the academic references which could in no sense be described as blogs. I'm really not sure how to demonstrate to you that these sources are in fact engaging with Kierkegaard's ideas. When the entirety of at least 5 or 6 RS sources I provided (including for example one from UGO.com entitled "Deconstructing Kierkegaard") deal directly with Kierkegaard's ideas, I can only guess that you don't find them to be long enough articles. Is that it? Or is it the fact that some of them are critical of his ideas and argue against them? I'm really not sure how we can be interpreting these so differently but let's be honest about the situation: this isn't a standard level of citation for an actual internet no-one. I've reviewed plenty of sources during the last year and a half at WP:VG/RS and I can tell you that dozens of RS citations and praise from 5 or 6 big-name journalists is rather unusual. This level of reception is usually sufficient to establish a source even without certified documents attesting to expert tier opinions. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Since this is now the third forum for this conversation, I guess I should provide yet another summary of the sources engaging with Kierkegaard's ideas, praising him, and otherwise citing him. See the box below:
Evidence of numerous citations and praise for Kierkegaard
The above evidence has all been offered previously so I don't expect it to change any minds, but just for the sake of the record I think it's important to establish what exactly the anti-Kierkegaard camp is dismissing as normal accolades regularly given to internet no-ones. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Note how the writers above are published in reliable sources, and Kierkegaard is not. Thibbs highlights the Loading journal, which is a reliable source. Note how that is the only reliable source to have even mentioned the book Thibbs wants to cite in its entire publication history. This is a book with zero reviews. - hahnchen 02:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, if Kierkegaard was remotely prominent, you wouldn't have to dress up your links with so much fluff. Indiegames links to insomnia because of a magazine scan they uploaded. Siliconera highlights a list of shops to buy games from. You wouldn't have to argue that non-games are a close cousin to art-games, when if you actually read the article, you'll find that dictionary apps are not remotely art-games, and the piece had nothing to do with this subject. Most of the GameSetWatch mentions (note how he's only linked to from GamaSutra's sister blog, and never Gamasutra) are from the regular links roundup. - hahnchen 02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
More barrel scraping - I mentioned previously that the "Gameplay pipeline, med skriptspråk" paper was a Master's thesis and not a peer reviewed piece of research. Thibbs' most recent find is the "Irrevocability in Games" paper, which is a piece of coursework for a bachelor's degree, it's not even the thesis, it's someone's homework. And by "less depthy", it means that they copied a screenshot from insomnia.ac. That's it. - hahnchen 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Completely missed the point. It's not that every RS citation covers him in detail, it's that he's covered in a variety of RSes. Are you suggesting that the only thing he's ever been cited for is image hosting? That's obviously flat wrong. He's covered in greater depth in the sources you didn't attack and at those linked from the previous two talk pages we've been chatting on. Anyway the above is a thoroughly useless recycling of all your old arguments. We disagree. Get over it. You're probably not going to convince me that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards just like I'm never going to convince you no matter what evidence I offer that he is reliable. I've actually read all of the articles I've linked and they demonstrate to me that the RSes do actually pay some attention to AK. As far as I can see you've already made up your mind that he's not reliable and I don't think there's anything anyone could do to change it. This back and forth with me saying "He's not perfect but he meets the minimum threshold and covers the topic in depth" and you saying "He's pathetic! 40 words is all the coverage of him I've seen! Fringe! Undue!" is getting us nowhere. If you don't like any of the compromises offered so far, please make an effort and come up with one yourself. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion #3

I'm concerned that this return to discussing the merits of the source in talk here is unlikely to be productive as we've already tried it at two other fora previously. I just don't think we're going to agree on whether AK meets the minimum threshold for citability on Wikipedia. I've already offered plenty of evidence that he does and Indrian and Hahnchen have not accepted any of it. So there's little hope in my mind that any of us will suddenly have an epiphany and realize that the other side was correct all along.

I've come up with another idea that could represent a compromise, though I have to say I've lost a lot of stomach for compromises considering that every compromise offered so far has been resisted/rejected and I've seen no proposed compromises coming from the anti-Kierkegaard camp whatsoever. Given that both sides understand the other's position very thoroughly now, there's no need to give a detailed explanations here but a simple yes or no !vote will be good enough. I propose that the entire Criticism section be reworked with help from both sides to ensure that no fringe theories are presented and that the Kierkegaard source be shifted down into a new "Further reading" section without providing a reference to any claim. It would be unlinked since it's a book and it would only take up 87 bytes (representing 0.1% of the total article size) so undue prominence couldn't conceivably be an issue. We'd of course need additional "further reading" sources to balance out its negative POV with positive POVs and to expand other facets of the topic. Would this satisfy everyone at last? -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • As compromises go, that is not bad. I accept it. I also want to clarify something to provide greater understanding of my position, as I think I did a poor job of conveying this earlier. My problem with the sources presented is that, generally speaking, each one only addresses one particular statement or theory rather than his whole body of work. This causes two problems: no specific idea of his receives a high level of coverage, while at the same time there is no good indication that he deserves general recognition since each source is examining one specific area without addressing the question of general notoriety. If every source you provided covered one specific idea of his, I would probably be satisfied that this idea had been widely discussed. Likewise, if every source you provided recognized him as an expert general theoretician on video game topics, that would also probably be sufficient. I do not believe it is possible to infer general or specific expertise from the current sources, however, due to a lack of such focus. Indrian (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that, if you applied that criterion to other references used at Video Games articles, very few of them would come out as reliable sources. Diego Moya (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember this person is self-published, not a writer for a blog that has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The standards are different when self-publishing is involved. Indrian (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Even someone who is self-published but has been commented on by other reliable sources means to someone their opinion "matters" (favorably or otherwise). There is a danger of SPS's being used to justify controversial claims, but when we are using an SPS to cite the person's opinion, and an opinion that has been called out by others, there is no RS violations going on here. As an external link to such as a section it would be fine. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, like I said, I am fine with an external link as a compromise. Still have to see what Hahnchen thinks though, so the two of them don't end up in an edit war. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I can speak for Hahnchen when I say that there's no danger of us getting into an actual edit war. We've both been editing for long enough to know better. I hope we can soon put this behind us and move on to something productive like improving the criticism section. -Thibbs (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No external link. The level of coverage that Kierkegaard has attained is pathetic. Compare that to actual writers who are published in reliable sources. WP:V specifies - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", Thibbs claims we can ignore the "published" criteria because the links above qualify him as an expert who's opinion matters. I disagree.
This book has generated 40 words of coverage. No content is lost by removing it. The only reason it's even being discussed is that Thibbs thinks highly of it. Reliable sources do not. We go with the latter. - hahnchen 02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess we've simply hit a total deadlock. I notice hahnchen has now decided to start the same discussion all over again at a 4th forum and from previous comments I can see that he's prepared to shop for another if he doesn't get the response he wants there. A warning that we were again changing fora would have been nice, hahnchen, as would a neutrally worded summary of the dispute obviously. Anyway at this point I am convinced that:

  1. The AK source does not in fact introduce any WP:FRINGE whatsoever. No support has emerged for this claim despite several invitations.
  2. The AK source does not in fact serve to provide WP:UNDUE coverage of his ideas. No support for this claim has emerged either.
  3. AK himself has been sufficiently cited by RSes to be considered sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In actual practice, several dozen citations by academic and journalistic RSes and praise from several renowned authors is sufficient to establish reliability for most RSes including self-published blogs. Obviously I recognize that some parties wish to hold this source to higher standards and thus do not find this to be an RS.
  4. The AK source is useful, informative, and the only one currently available that even comes remotely close to "comprehensive coverage" of the topic of "art game criticism". If any similarly-cited source of equivalent scope and breadth on the topic of "art game criticism" in fact exists then please bring it forth and we can forget about AK. If, however, the proposed "improvement" of the criticism section is to excise from the entire article its most in-depth source on "art game criticism" then I have to disagree that it helps in the least.

It looks to me like Hahnchen's draconian approach has failed to gain consensus after 3 weeks. The most recently suggested compromise has been accepted by everyone so far apart from Hahnchen. I don't think the inclusion of this source harms the article in any way but it does improve it by informing readers of criticism of the genre in a lengthy 104 page book, and it provides a useful service to the article's neutrality by presenting the contrary perspective. I'm concerned that there is more effort being put into battlegrounding than into collaborating. And I'm not at all impressed by a total inability to compromise (see "no fucking compromise") when faced with deadlock arising out of a goodfaith difference of opinion. It's not remotely collegial. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's on another fora, because Wikiproject VG does not care, and bumping back to this low traffic talk page, who's editors did not care in the first place doesn't exactly bring new voices into the fold. I essentially think that the editors here were too close to their favoured self-published sources, and have allowed their own personal tastes to override the necessity for reliable sources. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We've discussed the issues of sourcing. No one disagrees that Keirkegaard is an WP:SPS, but as the SPS page says, these aren't forbidden as sources, but should be used with due care. Now, if no one else in the world ever mentioned Kierkegaard, ever, yes, stuffing his view in here would be a misuse of an SPS (the usual result of an SPS), but this is not the case. Others in clearly reliable sources have mentioned him and his art games essay alongside other viewpoints about video games as art, though generally pointing out how his view is out in left field. For purposes of talking about the various opinions on the concept video games as art, we have RS that suggest that this viewpoint be considered, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works as citable material, as long as we clearly don't swing the entire article into one supportive of his theories. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works" - WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Kierkegaard does not fit the definition of an expert source. Thibbs has argued that WP:SPS does not apply because these are opinions. - hahnchen 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"Thibbs has argued that WP:SPS does not apply because these are opinions", because that's what Wikipedia guidelines say. Are you in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines or not? Diego Moya (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about opinions on the concept of art games, and as long as his opinion has been discussed by others, its reasonable to include. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Consider the books coverage, 40 words in one paper. Elevating this to an external link, pointing it out as further reading would be giving this book significantly more weight than it deserves. The one paper it has been cited in, also cites 3 and a half pages of references. Would you place each of those in an external link?
And so the question goes, why - given Kierkegaard's lack of coverage in third party reliable sources, are we to elevate his self-published work on Wikipedia? - hahnchen 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Your argument up until now has been that the original version of the article gave undue prominence to the ideas contained in the book. That problem, if it had any actual merit, could not be cured by blanking the reference alone because the undue idea would still remain. It's not very hard to understand. You're now changing your UNDUE argument to say that because one piece of writing by an otherwise reliable writer hasn't been discussed by anything apart from a top Canadian university journal it's therefore unusable by Wikipedia for a "see also" section. I disagree. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with citing the journal. That's a reliable source. I don't buy your argument that sources do not have to be reliable if it's an opinion. Giving Kierkegaard any kind of special elevation to "see also", over the 3 and a half pages of citations in that paper would clearly give it undue weight. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm on vacation currently and won't be able to respond much in the next few days but I'm still open to the compromise #3 above and unless someone can come up with something better, I'm definitely opposed to hahnchen's complete removal of the book which is to my knowledge the most comprehensive work on "art game criticism" produced by an author who has been frequently cited and praised by the RSes. If a better source is produced while I'm gone then go ahead and swap out the AK source. Otherwise I strongly object to its removal and will rejoin the discussion when I get back. -Thibbs (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've put the question whehther Kierkegaard can be a valid SPS RS to WP:RS/N (here). --MASEM (t) 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Singling out Kierkegaard's book is even worse in further reading is even worse in terms on promotion. How a self-published book with one citation in a paper with several pages of citations gets singled out is beyond me, the argument seems to be "I like it". Reliable sources don't. - hahnchen 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • While I am still willing to accept the compromise for the sake of wikipeace, I fully agree with Hahnchen's statements. Self-published authors are held to a higher standard by wikipedia's policies that require they be certified as experts by published reliable sources before their works are cited. None of the many sources presented here have actually accorded Kierkegaard that stature. His works are therefore not reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the best way forward is through compromise. As Indrian's comments suggest, and as I've long felt myself, the best compromises result in the giving of ground by both sides. In dropping the stick and allowing the current compromise to persist, Hahnchen can rest assured that the source he considers toxic is no longer used in any way as support for the claims making up the substance of this Wikipedia article. Any fringe ideas it has are no longer presented in Wikipedia if they ever were and whatever weight the ideas may have been given has been reduced to a single line buried in a section at the en suggesting longer sources that readers can look into more deeply if they are interested. At the same time, those who view the Kierkegaard source as helpful to a neutral and complete coverage of the topic can rest assured that one of the most in-depth sources on the topic of "art game criticism" remains available (even if only by brief mention) for readers interested in the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The compromise is that the content remains, Kierkegaard doesn't. I'm sick of having to remove this self-published book with next to zero coverage, just because it enjoys the protection of 2 Wikipedians who hold it in high regard. This entire debate has been a mockery of WP:RS, and is more akin to WP:BOOKSPAM. Any means necessary to ensure our favourite critic gets his work elevated alongside notable authors and books published by actual publishers. "those who view the Kierkegaard source as helpful to a neutral and complete coverage" consist of no reliable sources, but a few Wikipedia hype men. - hahnchen 17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely not a compromise (much less the compromise that has already been agreed to). Are you joking? You're trying to establish an edit that has not in any sense achieved consensus. This is not your own personal encyclopedia and you can't hold your breath and keep reverting to get your way.
      Due to a month-long crusade to remove the source from all of Wikipedia, every effort has been made to offer you a compromise. And you've spat at it all, meeting the collaborative spirit with rancor. I see no evidence of any effort to work with your fellow editors, but only to impose your will on them regardless of the merits of their position. It's wonderful that you've managed to get Indrian to support your underlying concerns, but even after spreading the argument to 4 talk pages, he remains the only one who shares your concerns and significantly he's agreed to the latest compromise - relegating the source to a single footnote at the tail end of the article, lost among several other sources. Although I disagree with Indrian's view on the matter, it's clear to me that he's at least interested in taking this discussion in a constructive direction. You are the only person who views this source as so dangerous to the readers as to require complete excision from all corners of Wikipedia despite clear evidence that the author has been praised and cited by dozens of journalistic and academic RSes.
      Despite your thinly-veiled accusations, this isn't in fact some elaborate plot to promote an obnoxious writer. It's an effort to provide the readership with comprehensive and neutral coverage of the article's topic. That selection of this 104-page source over the other 2-paragraph alternatives is based on the opinions of your editor-peers (i.e. the unsourced view that it is in fact a thorough criticism) is absolutely not a proper basis to dismiss it. It should come as no surprise to you that the selection of all sources in all articles comes through the discretion of your editor-peers exercising their good faith opinions in the interest of the readership. As sick as you are of having to revert war to get your way, I'm sick of the rancor and bad faith assumptions. Nobody came to Wikipedia to play at wiki-gladiators with you in your own special arena. The rest of us are here to collaborate constructively. Neither Indrian nor those who view the Kierkegaard source as useful and informative would consider the current compromise to be perfect, but that's what it means to compromise. That's the first step leading to constructive collaboration. If you can't handle that and your only frank interest here is to remove the Kierkegaard source then perhaps the best way to do so is to propose a superior alternative source. Until that time, your draconian edit represents a change contrary to consensus and is thus completely unproductive. I find the revert war games to be repugnant in the extreme and I refuse to participate in them. You've been here 8 years and yet you think this is an acceptable way to behave? -Thibbs (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "Editor-peers" are not experts, it's why we use reliable sources. Independently published, reliable sources - we trust publishers and reviewers as the filter as to what should be used, not the word of an editor-peer. I tried to remove one sentence at video games as an art form and got dragged into this Kierkegaard defence force quagmire. Going back to my first comment made, "Not sure why I have to discuss this on the talk page", thanks Wiki-gladiators, but I thought removing bookspam would be simple. - hahnchen 00:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • You have edit warred and failed to abide by the consensus of others that this is a reasonable source to include. Consensus does not require everyone to like the result. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Why should I accept a "compromise" that is against policy? You understand that the argument to keep this book boils down to "I like this book", and that the argument against it is that "reliable sources don't". This "consensus" consists of exactly same editors who deemed the book a reliable source in the first place. - hahnchen 00:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Because the book's inclusion is not flat-out against policy, so ergo edit warring over its removal is inappropriate. If it was something like a problem with BLP, you'd have every right to keep removing it, but that's not the case here. Yes, it is not the best source in the world, but there's no policy that you have been able to cite for how the book is being used here that makes it against policy, except in your own opinion. As consensus has evaluated the book differently against policy (which has been pointed out above) as a reasonable source to include for the author's opinions but nothing else, there's no reason to remove it. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Congratulations on finding a section of an article where promoting the work is "not flat-out against policy", that's a great place to be. You've Wikilawyered and found "further reading", the only place on Wikipedia where apparently anything goes. And standards of WP:V and WP:SPS fly out the window. - hahnchen 12:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
            • You're of course encouraged to suggest a superior alternative source if any exist, Hahnchen. The point is not that this source must be included but that neutrality must be preserved by presenting a comprehensive critical view of this topic. Please stop revert warring, though. -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Essentially, the reason against its removal, is that in the "further reading" section, anything goes - and that "editor-peers" suggestions take primacy over reliable sources. Sure, he doesn't meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS, but in "further reading", anything goes. Not a single editor has been persuaded that Kierkegaard is suitable, instead I've been buffeted by the same editors who felt that Kierkegaard was qualified and reliable enough to be cited in the lead of the Video games as an art form.
  • Thibbs' assertion that source is necessary because of WP:NPOV runs roughshod over the idea that NPOV is determined by reliable sources. We create articles from reliable sources, reliable sources determine the article contents. Yet Thibbs' position is that the promotional link can only be removed if there is a "a superior alternative source" essentially means that Wikipedians alone decide on the article, and they fit whichever source meets their worldview, regardless of its reliability. - hahnchen 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's been explained sufficiently above that the inclusion of Kierkegaard's work is not something out of the blue, that others have pointed to his SPS as a counterpoint on the topic of art and video games; however, these sources don't explain the details, just that he has an alternate take. Thus, a single mention among all the other opinions that already exist about art and video games, using the noted SPS (which, again, is not necessarily an automatic WP:V/WP:RS failure) is completely acceptable inside policy. You're the only one fighting outright removal against what policy and IAR allows. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Should we have any? There are definitely a few key websites that crop up again and again if you look for more info on the art game scene. Several of them also house the writings of key figures in the scene and several of these are university professors or art museum curators. So there's at least some kind of a good RS-related rationale for including them. I'll list the main ones I've run across below. Please give me input on them and on the general idea of adding external links. As with any topic like this I'm wary about letting it turn into a massive link-farm from good-intentioned people who just don't understand Wikipedia's rules.

I'm kind of torn over whether this article needs an external sources section at all. Most of the other game genre articles do not have such a section. And again, I'm concerned about the potential for this to encourage others to add their own websites as SPAM. If we do want a section like this, though, then the above are some examples of the most active related websites. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MoS linking

Referring to the Diego Moya edit summary "Who put the template? These red links are compliant with the guideline" I answer that admin ilk put it.

My reverted edit had randomly minimized the red linking. Give me the shortlist, and I will relink them, and without further need for discussion about the several guidelines (within guidelines and around), hopefully.

There were 416 unique link names. I had left a random four red.

Now there are again 484 links, the difference being red links going from 1% to 14%. So here is a (editable) list of 65 red links:

Extended content
  1. 911 Survivor
  2. a maze@getty.edu|a_maze@getty.edu
  3. Akrasia (video game)|Akrasia
  4. Alexis Andre (video game designer)|Alexis Andre
  5. Antonin Fourneau
  6. Art Game (video game)|Art Game
  7. Binary Zoo
  8. Broken Rules
  9. Calderoids
  10. Camera (simulation)|Camera
  11. Cardboard Computer
  12. Cart Life
  13. Coil (video game)|Coil
  14. Douglas Edric Stanley
  15. Earth (video game)|Earth
  16. Eddo Stern
  17. Eggregor8
  18. Famicom (art collective)|Famicom
  19. Flywrench
  20. GameLab
  21. Geoffrey Thomas (artist)|Geoffrey Thomas
  22. Glum Buster
  23. Graf War
  24. Hampa Söderström
  25. iCarus (video game)|iCarus
  26. Kian Bashiri|Kianis
  27. Lea Schönfelder
  28. Left to my Own Devices (video game)|Left to my Own Devices
  29. Lifespan (video game)|Lifespan
  30. Lonnie Flickinger
  31. Lose/lose
  32. Manuel Braun
  33. Mark Essen
  34. Nidhogg (video game)|Nidhogg
  35. Nom 3
  36. OnRamp Arts
  37. Pac-Mondrian
  38. Peter Stock
  39. Pippin Barr
  40. Prize Budget For Boys
  41. Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist
  42. Ruins (video game)|Ruins
  43. Seven Minutes
  44. Sidequest: Text Adventure
  45. Sunshine (video game)|Sunshine
  46. Swashbuckel Ur Seatbelts
  47. Sweat Life
  48. That Dragon, Cancer
  49. The Eggyard
  50. The Guardians of Tradition
  51. The Huffington Post
  52. Tiffany Holmes
  53. Torrent Raiders
  54. Tropical America
  55. Tyler Glaiel
  56. Ulitsa Dimitrova
  57. Virtanen Games
  58. Waco Resurrection|Waco Resurrection: C-Level
  59. WTF?! (video game)|WTF?!
  60. You Have To Fertilize the Egg
  61. Zach Gage

want two per section? Want a percent per article? Would you consider editing me a list from it? I can relink automatically with any kind of list (keep, remove, add) you leave me. — CpiralCpiral 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally redlinks are permissible as a guide for the creation of articles that should be created because the subject is notable and verifiable. In the list at hand all entries have at least one RS backing them up and so the verifiability criterion is met. Notability isn't established here, but other sources exist for the majority of these topics. So most of them, considered individually, would probably be fine. The template was probably put up for reasons of overlinking concerns, but of course that's a valid editorial judgment as well.
My personal view is that there are some members of the list that should certainly be redlinked. Good articles could fairly easily be written on: Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage at the very least. In fact it looks like an article has already been started on Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist here. I'm not opposed to delinking some of them, but I think the way to do it is to apply Part D of WP:BEFORE, checking to make sure that there aren't additional RSes sufficient to demonstrate notability. If the redlinked topic isn't notable then it should be delinked. Otherwise I see no real harm in keeping valid redlinks. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We have already agreed that there are too many red links. I will agree to Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage, or whichever you say they are. I say that because I can text process the relinking (automatically). So we could continue to tailor the look and feel, and adjust. I will advocate downward adjustments until the a number is a quantity of red links exactly equal to the number of subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support, thus beginning a stance that is disregarding "article creation and deletion guides" for the most part, and refocuses on subject creation guides, plus a few article creation guides. See, when those red links are blue, what it takes to understand Art games has reached such a degree as it is being reviewed for a featured article, such as the red links at the featured list article Amateur radio frequency bands in India. But notice the lack of "article creation guidelines" (WP:CSC) in the other featured list articles (Wikipedia:Featured lists). — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have no idea what you mean by "subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support" but I'm glad to see that you've agreed to stop delinking every redlink in sight. There may be redlinks that should be delinked, but please only delink those redlinks that are associated with non-notable topics. To determine which are non-notable you must make a goodfaith effort to look for reliable sources on the topic. If no RSes can be located on a redlinked topic then it's reasonable to assume that no article could be written on the topic. Simply delinking them all without looking to see if they are notable topics is not helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
During my absence I was very busy thinking about the general situation this discussion brought up. It is sad that I cannot just go by the cleanup tag and point my bot and click. I wish a red-link cleanup gnome's work could be without discernment, but here is what that would take: 1) WP:RL explained the two kinds of red links 2) The tag was placed by someone who understood the two descriptions. 3) The authors clearly demarcated the two, preferably by avoiding mixing the two in a stand-alone lists (WP:CSC), if possible. Now the two kinds of red links are these: one is the subject kind (WP:outlines), where "subjects support each other" and the other is the "article creation guideline" kind where "articles support each other". That is what I have come to believe. — CpiralCpiral 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get where you're coming from, Cpiral. Are you measuring the suitability of red links for inclusion depending on the volume and percentage of links in the page, instead of the topic that the red link points to?
The topic suitability is already measured. It is suitable. (For an understanding of red-link functionality that is suitable-topic related, namely scoping functionality, see what I wrote in MoS talkspace. The suitablity for editors differs from readers. By "a percentage of links", I'm speaking for the readers. Thibbs has given me a list to keep, and I intend to relink to his recommendations for the editorship here. — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm the first one to prefer to follow the spirit of guidelines above their letter; my pointing to WP:Red link was a reminder that there are cases where a red link provides value, and in my opinion most if not all the instances in this list are thus valuable "legitimate red links", as they inform of topics for which an article or section can likely be written (and could signal when such article has been written).
What is your rationale though for wanting to reduce the number of red links? What would be gained by turning them in plain text? Diego (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Readability, that readership-orientation value we'd better have. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If the only reason is readability, the rules are not the same as for plain text; as this is a list, one red link at each line is OK, and in this case actually better than the black text. At least all game names should be red linked. Having one red or blue link per line helps readability; in the version where some games are written as black text, it's more difficult to scan the start of each line. It could be Ok to remove the second red link for the game publisher at lines where both are red links. Diego (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. The list items with sentence structures, if all black, are not as quick to read. I looked at some other lists and saw the "lead effect" where the first word is almost always blue link, and how red link is the same light, and how black would not start as well. Your point is that, like syntax highlighting
class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!"); // Print "Hello World!"
    }
}

or 

    print "Hello World!\n";

for programming languages, readability is increased. Your red is for editor readability. A reader, by definition, is new to the article, carefully scans every word in a sequence and is gone with games' names and linked faces, maybe forever. Similarly, developers of computing apps have a different relationship with their "source code" than do their awed users gawking at the wonders of it all.

I appreciate the answers here very much. They'll compile very well with other talk space material and a survey of wp:featured lists to help (I hope somehow) WP:Red link and the MoS. I think it's yet another complicated aspect of Wikipedia that'll eventually simplify somewhat. — CpiralCpiral 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of That Dragon, Cancer, Papo & Yo, and Papers Please

Hanchan is attempting to remove these three games, as described from this article [38] claiming they aren't art games. Yet, by the article and the nature of the 2002 definition that's mentioned in the lead, these are games meant to illicit an emotional reaction from the player. Given all the other games on the list, I'm not seeing how these aren't as appropriate here as the rest. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced entries

I notice that Okami has just been removed from the list of examples. While I recognize that differences of opinion may exist concerning the categorization of this game as an art game, I'm not sure it benefits the article at all to remove one of the few sourced examples and to replace it with two unsourced ones. I'll leave Okami off the list for now since the list is not intended to be exhaustive, but could people please try to source the entries that are listed with cn-tags? Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The source for Okami seems pretty sketchy, with some guy mentioning it as art in an almost passing way (he also mentions Gears of War as an example, for it's architecture). Okami really doesn't fit the description that the article presents, so I've removed it from the list again. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it might seem that if you know that the a sourced comment is wrong then it should be removed to avoid confusing readers about the truth. In actuality, however, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth but rather verifiability. The fact is that "Okami as an 'art game'" is a verifiable statement whereas your (possibly) true statement that "Okami is not an 'art game'" can only be characterized as original research.
Now you've also brought up the fact that you believe Format Magazine to fall short of the threshold to qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with your assertion that the source is non-reliable. What is your rationale? -Thibbs (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty having a source doesn't automatically qualify something for inclusion. The fact is that Okami doesn't fit the description of an art game that this article presents. If we want to include Okami on this list, we would have to reword the entire article to make it fit. Bad idea.
Art game is an often misused term, and I think the source claiming it is one is confusing "art game" with "artistic game." Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The only requirements are that the source be reliable and verifiable. If a statement meets both of those qualifications the only thing that can be done to keep the information out is to gain consensus that it should be excluded for common sense or miscellaneous other reasons. Considering the definition for "art game" in the lede is "a video game that is designed in such a way as to emphasize art," and considering that the portions you removed described Okami as "a video game created in the sumi-e style," and finally considering that the sumi-e style is a style of art, I think the basic definition is met.
I agree I feel like the game is kind of misplaced among most of the other games here which are typically indie games that lack traditional plots, emphasize a political or social message, and often have seen only limited niche success. I'd be willing to help you form a common sense consensus to exclude the game from the list despite the fact that it is reliably and verifiably listed as an art game, but I think you'll need to do more than just reiterate that you're certain the game doesn't fit the art game genre. Perhaps the lede should be rewritten? -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I still don't feel the source offered is strong enough. Had he gone into great detail about Okami as an art game, listing reasons why, etc. then I'd concede that it should be included on this list. He doesn't do that though, and instead he just casually slips it in, without offering any real reasoning. Granted, that's more than most of the games on the list, but just because the other games are lacking sources, doesn't mean we should use weak sources. I feel like if we include Okami, then we have to include Gears of War, since they're mentioned in the same paragraph as artistic... and that's just silly.
I don't think Electroplankton should be on the list either, but it's got a good source that definitely credits it as such, so I won't make a stink about it. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My only problem with that is the fact that Format Magazine article which you are suggesting isn't reliable enough is actually an interview with authors who write for destructoid.com (listed as a situationally reliable source), n4g.com (unlisted), videogamer.com confirmed reliable), and joystiq.com (situationally reliable). In particular the "some guy" who characterizes Okami as an art game is Ken McKown, a writer for n4g.com and 1UP.com (the very first entry on WP:VG/RS#General). So these aren't just guys they pulled off the streets. The interviewees are established experts on the topic of video games whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Of course this doesn't mean they are infallible. Even experts make mistakes. I would be inclined to agree with you that listing Okami as an art game is more of a mistake than correct, but we need to at least articulate our reason why we think the error was made and I don't think we can make a plausible argument that the source is unreliable. The "Art game" article on Wikipedia, which you believe descriptively bars Okami, is actually primarily based on the Format Magazine article. You have to consider that if we remove Okami under the claim that it is based on unreliable sources, we also have to remove large portions of the "Art game" article (including portions from the lede). I think this would be a mistake.

I was bothered by your suggestion that Mr. McKown had listed Gears of War as an example of an art game since that seems even more far-fetched than Okami, so I reviewed the article and I think you're mischaracterizing his statement. To quote from the Format article:

Ken McKown: An art game is something that stands out for its aesthetic beauty or complexity in design. Good examples of this would be Braid or Okami. Good art can be anything that stands out in a game such as the architecture in a say Gears of War or the fact that no two houses in a Zelda game are identical. Good art in games are the minor details that really stand out and make you appreciate the nuances developers take time to put in there.

I think it is telling that he uses the phrase "a[,] say[,]" to offset his discussion of Gears of War and Zelda from his earlier discussion of Braid and Okami. I think it is quite clear in fact, that while Braid and Okami are identified as "thing[s] that stands out for [their] aesthetic beauty or complexity in design" (i.e. art games), Gears of War and Zelda are identified as simply containing "thing[s] that stand[] out in a game such as the architecture" (i.e. good art). In other words Braid and Okami are art games whereas Gears of War and Zelda are simply examples of games that contain elements of art-game-quality "good art." By using the phrase "a[,] say[,]" Mr. McKown demonstrates that he is talking about a class of games for which Gears of War and Zelda are but examples (this is clear from his use of the unspecific "a"), and that he is talking in offhand generalities (this is clear from his use of the flippant "say"). Here McKown is highlighting the difference between "art games" (e.g. Braid, Okami) and the "game art" they are often characterized by (e.g. elements from Gears of War, elements from Zelda).

I am quite glad I examined this portion, though, because I believe it holds the answer to why both of us are in agreement that Okami is not a very good fit with the article before us. Let's look at McKown's definition of art game again: "An art game is something that stands out for its aesthetic beauty or complexity in design." By stating that the game "stands out," Mr. McKown logically suggests that there is a "rest-of-the-chaff" from which it stands apart. These non-art-games from which the art games may be identified, however, are clearly part of an ever-changing medium. Thus, McKown's definition of "art game" is temporally limited to the present. And therefore his characterization of Okami is one that was perhaps accurate as of November 5th, 2008 (the date of the Format article), but that may not be accurate today. I believe we are in general agreement that it doesn't really fit today. What has changed since November 5th, 2008? I'm not really sure. Perhaps the quality of art in the non-art-games has risen to the point where Okami has been diluted out of the genre as no longer "standing out" for its art (a valid reason to strike it from the article). After all, the Format article was written only months after the game's release on the Wii and so it is possible that while the game may have been artistically boundary-pushing, critical recognition of it as an "art game" may have been affected by its novelty of release. Perhaps attitudes have simply changed to the point where, due to familiarity with the game, it no longer "stands out" in our estimation (an invalid reason to strike it from the article). Anyway I think this inherent temporal limitation of Mr. McKown's definition should be our basic reason for excluding the game from the list if we decide as much rather than the assumption that the source is weak/unreliable. Does this sound like a good reason to you? -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Seems quite reasonable. Nicely done, and good discussing with you. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers -Thibbs (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries

I've removed the following examples from the list of examples of art games.

  • Seven Minutes (2008, PC) - Platformer as nihilist philosophy.
  • Pathologic - a video game by the Ice-Pick Lodge studio, that explores the survival of healers in a dying city.
  • Tension - survival-adventure video game, also developed by the Ice-Pick Lodge studio, depicting surreal world of Void. Every action in the game (except simple moving) is done via drawing.
  • RPG Triptych - Last Intervention - RPG Triptych [39] is a role-playing art game in the style of 1990s Japanese RPGs created by artist Samson Young [40], featuring philosophical conversations from Jean Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies. Featured in October Contemporary 2009 in Hong Kong [41], and Prospectives09 International Digital Art Festival at the University of Neveda. [42]

These games have been listed as "citation needed" for over a year now and it appears unlikely that any citations will be forthcoming. If any editor wishes to re-insert them then proper sources indicating that the games have been referred to as "art games" or "arthouse games" would be necessary. In addition, I would suggest that interested editors begin to consider how to limit the list of examples considering that it is rather on the large side now and is bound to only continue to grow. One possibility would be to limit the list to games that have won prizes or have been featured in art exhibits or other notable achievements. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a good call, and I agree that the list is still too long. In fact, we might want to consider getting rid of the list altogether (wikipedia hates lists), and turn it into a prose section, talking about notable examples and specifically why they are considered art games, rather than just the title and a brief description. This would help filter out a lot of unnecessary titles, since we'd be looking for sources that describe WHY they are art games, and not just saying they are without explanation. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not that WP hates lists, but there are certain types of lists that are better as prose. That said, what I'd recommend is actually a table, with game name, developer, publisher, system, year, and a brief rational for its art-gamey-ness. This table would be at the end of the article, but the prose can mention games already in the table, etc. to provide better background. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Myst

What about MYST or RIVEN? They are certainly art, especially when DOOM was the other big hit of 1993. Endlessmug (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the game art in Myst and Riven was spectacular for its day. But there's a difference between game art and art games. See art game versus game art. To include Myst or Riven as an example of an art game we'd need solid sourcing indicating that either game is considered an "art game"/"arthouse game" or something equivalent. -Thibbs (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Invaders! release date

The article currently has it listed as 2002, but I can't find any material to back that up. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What to do with the "Examples" subsection

Lately this portion of the article seems to have become problematic. As a bare list of examples of art games, there isn't much guidance as to what is appropriate to include and what isn't. Obviously it's inappropriate to list all art games in this subsection since then we'd basically be talking about an unbounded list, so how should we address this? One idea is to provide a brief (1-2 sentence) header for this subsection limiting the list to a set number of the best-known, most-notable, or otherwise defining examples of the genre. This might be difficult to define, however, and the only real way to achieve this would be to have the list of examples defined by local consensus. Another idea is just to get rid of the subsection entirely and instead to transfer those games into inline reporting under the "history" subsection. The games that don't fit into "history" could simply be categorized under Category:Art games and removed. Which plan sounds better? Are there any other solutions I haven't thought of? -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We should list a few examples, and then possibly consider if a "List of art games" makes sense, though certainly highly a category for art games. But the examples should be obvious with significant RS describing them as such to be included as an example. the MGS2 entry is stretching the truth compared to others. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm for doing away with the list altogether. Other game genre articles generally don't include such lists, and instead incorporate notable examples into prose (in a history section or whatever is appropriate), and I feel that's the best course of action for this article. A major problem with the list, and in fact the article in general, is that most people don't know what an art game is, and reviewers will frequently apply the label to artistic games (Okami, MGS2, etc). Most of these citations come from video game reviews, but are these sources reliable? Clearly they're reliable when dealing with video games, but what do they really know about art? It seems kind of like citing a baseball commentator on the impressionism page (hyperbole, but you see where I'm going). One possible solution would be to only accept sources from notable ART critics, rather than GAME critics, though we might then find the problem there simply aren't enough notable sources from the art community talking about art games. Just sort of thinking out loud here. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds best to me as well. I think it would be difficult to provide a good objective definition of the "elevated notability" that would earn a game a spot in a "notable examples" list. In modern times video game coverage is often wide enough that we'd be asking for more notability than the Wikipedia guidelines. Even if heightened standards were applied we'd only be slowing the growth of what amounts to a potentially infinite list. So unless there are objections, let's shift the list here into talk pending a proper merge of the material to a "history" section. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thumbs up. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OK I've shifted them into a subsection below. Some of them are more important to the history and development of the genre than others so I think that some of them should really be restored to the article in the form of a history section. The sources all seem pretty good so they could easily be reused for the article mainspace. Other members of the blow list, however, appear to be much less important to the history of the genre and so including them would probably violate WP:UNDUE. Anyway I think this should clear up a lot of the problems of the list growing unmanageably huge. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Examples of games in the art game genre include:

Rez

I believe Rez/Rez HD (and the spiritual sequel Children of Eden) are heavily considered artistic, and perhaps could use an honorable mention on this page? ProjectPlatinum 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectPlatinum (talk • contribs)

I agree, but there has to be reliable sources claiming it as an art game (and not just "artistic") --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd also be cautious about adding Child of Eden yet since as far as I know it hasn't been released. -Thibbs (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Someone might want to add "The Company of Myself" to the list. --109.186.9.50 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.93.74 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-sourced additions to the list of art games

This article is actually a split from Video games as art and as such there are issues with the embedded list of art games that have been discussed there and that represent a consensus approach to editing this article now. Specifically, see Talk:Video games as art#Removal of sourced entries and Talk:Video games as art#Removing unsourced entries and Talk:Video games as art#What to do with the "Examples" subsection for important discussions regarding why sources are necessary for the this list. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

what about an actual art game like Mario Paint?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.152.78 (talk)
The addition of Mario Paint would also require sources for the reasons listed in talk above. I think it's a nonstarter, though. Although it allows user-creation of "game art," Mario Paint is more of a nongame software tool or utility that has been dressed up to be a game than an "art game." See Art game (disambiguation) for clarification on the difference between "art game" and "game art." -Thibbs (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Games requiring a reliable source calling it "art"

There is actually an argument that all games are art so I think it's more important to find a source actually calling Grim Fandango an "art game". The same goes for Killer7's source (gamescanbeart.com) which simply describes it as "art" instead of an "art game" or an "arthouse game" - the specific term defined by this article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The same is also true for Riven which was just added. The source claims "Art, finally, is what Riven approaches" and does not suggest that the game is an "art game." A basic analogy can be drawn to "art films". Even though a film like The Matrix may be fairly described as art, there's a huge difference between a mass-appeal Hollywood spectacular like The Matrix and an actual art film like Rose Hobart or the 1964 Empire. Those are strongly juxtaposed examples and of course there are plenty of other less navel-gazing films that kind of straddle the line between attempted blockbuster and arthouse, but you can't just find a source describing the lush backdrops of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as "elevating the film to new artistic heights" and assume that this means it's an arthouse film. It's not. The Myst games clearly make use of artistic elements and they are great examples of games as art, but they aren't "art games" unless they are directly described as such by the RSes. They may be as much "art" as other games that are art, but I'm not sure they're particularly comparable to actual art games like Every Day the Same Dream or Passage. On the other hand, if sources can be found that show them to be "art games" rather than simply "games that are art" then I shut my mouth. But explicit RS claims are necessary here. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem with both the definition and the selection criteria - few or no sources are using the specific words "art game" to describe games that are considered art; the few that do, I suspect are doing so influenced be the title of this article. If you enforced the strictest interpretation of the current criterion you'd have like three games in the list or so. The current list (including Myst) compiles "games designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience", which can be supported by sources more easily, but that still requires something more than just describing the artistic heights of its production values; the context of the review must be explicitly about games as art. Diego (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not accurate. The majority of the games in the list at present have sources that describe them as "art games" or "arthouse games" (although several newer additions are steadily diluting this). This article was also created December 2011 and by my count only 14 of the 59 sources post-date it's creation. I can see no evidence at all of WP:CIRCULAR but if any of the sources make reference to the Wikipedia article as their sole basis for conferring the term then they should be removed. The problem with editors interpreting the phrase "games designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience" to describe games that the RSes don't actually call "art games" is that this is original research. The term is so vague that any game fits the description. What game designer creates a game hoping for no reaction from the audience? The definition is suggestive and properly sourced in the context of "art games" so I'm not saying it should be removed, but it's certainly not sufficient to rely on to conduct original research regarding definition of a game's genre.
Within the industry there is a distinct meaning to "art game" which makes it more comparable to "art film". I really think this analogy is a good one. Art games are typically indie games that are of only niche interest and that are intended as vehicles for artistic messages. Although the art game aesthetic has arguably pierced into some mainstream titles today, and although the Roger Ebert business has provoked many to re-examine all sorts of old games and to describe them as art or to highlight their artistic elements in the context of traditional art, true "arthouse games" are actually rather uncommon because they are frequently created without regard for commercial success and so the list here will naturally be relatively short. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note - I still think it would be best as a companion list to this article instead of an embedded list, though, since as time goes on more and more art games are made and the list will eventually start to overwhelm the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to have two lists: one for games that are specifically considered "art house" ala "art film" games - a distinction that is going to be made more on the developer's side than the reception side - and a second list for "games considered examples of video games as art" - eg Grim Fandango, etc. By their nature, all art house films would be in this second list, but I would not include them in both but have a callout in the second list to the first. ("Art games are also considered examples of games as art, and examples are listed here."). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea for the list article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same. So if the three of us agree, it has to be a good idea. Diego (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Split list

Ok, I've split the list among the lines of the conversation above. I've been ruthless with the inclusion criterion and moved to the new list at Video games as art absolutely everything that wasn't described with the exact words "art game", "art videogame" or "arthouse game" within the available sources.

This is likely to have produced some false positives (The Path?), but that's what was agreed upon, and I hope it illustrates the problem that I was talking about above with using a criterion that's too strict. If you want to move some games back from there to here, be prepare to find a source using the magic words to define the game, or to explain why the game should be listed here without them. Diego (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, the next step should be to dig through the article's history and recover any sourced artistic games that were still deleted for not being an "arthouse game", and place them at the other list. Diego (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And I've moved The Path back here. It wasn't difficult, but it wasn't sourced as an art game with the previous reference. I hope this exercise will serve to clarify the exact criterion by which games can be listed, and to improve the available sources. Diego (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a great start to me. There may yet need to be some tweaks like that which you identified for "The Path", but thanks for the effort Diego! -Thibbs (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hotline Miami

Hotline Miami should be considered for this list. It's being extensivly discussed and analyzied in both the game community and media. For example: http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=424
81.234.243.219 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the list is already too long. Aside from the problem of editors adding in unsourced entries and the fact that many of the sources are not listed as RSes, the designation of particular games as "art games" (RS or no) is often controversial and as such the limited benefit of having the non-prose and thus less-explained list in this article in the first place is undermined by the unneeded controversy it creates.
The prior consensus was to remove this portion of the article as it has the potential to become very large and overwhelm the rest of the article. This is in fact what is currently happening. Given that there seems to be strong interest in listing games as "art games" rather than just using the category I'd like to again propose that:
  • We should incorporate the truly important art games (first few art games, particularly genre-defining or controversial art games, art games provoking commentary from the non-game world - particularly in terms of art-funding organizations, etc.) into a prose history section and
  • I'd also endorse Masem's suggestion above that a sourced list of art games could be split from this one together with #Examples from above.
81.234.243.219's suggestion to add Hotline Miami to the list of art games may be OK if RSes can be uncovered to indicate that it is an "art game," but I think it would be best to add it to a new List of art games article. Any thoughts? I'll start research on a prose-style history section for this article either way. -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We could al-- oh wait, you said my suggestion already :) As long as the requirement to be on the list is "a reliable source defining said game as an "art game") (as opposed to a game just notable for its art), we're golden. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK so I was just about to make the split now (to shift the embedded list to here), but considering that there has been some resistance to the idea in the past I reconsidered and I now think that the best thing to do is to use WP:SIZESPLIT as the brightline. Right now the article is ~45k including the list. I say that we wait until 50k per SIZESPLIT and then go for it. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"History" section

I realize I'm going slowly with this, but one of my stumbling blocks has been in trying to think of a way to complete elements of the split that were imperfectly carried out just over a year ago. An "art game"-heavy history section already exists at Games as art#History, and I've been trying to think of a way to use this material as a starting point without being redundant to that article. But now I'm thinking that the best way may be to simply move the "art game" material here and to refocus the history section there on the debate that is the topic of that article. Obviously some mention of art games should appear in the history section of the "games as art" article, but I don't know if it's appropriate for them to be primary focus. Likewise we wouldn't import historical info like the National Endowment for the Arts' recognition or the US Supreme Court case since they relate to "games as art" but not to "art games". But otherwise, I think the two middle paragraphs and some of the first paragraph should be shifted here. Any thoughts on this suggestion? -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, part of that section could be moved here. Just give it a try and lets do some editing on it. Diego (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
OK I shifted over the top part (first 3 paragraphs) of the history section from games as art, but cutting it from the history section there would leave it in quite shabby shape. I'll try to rework the section therewhen I have some time. Right now my internet connection is behaving very poorly... -Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Experimental games

Seeing games like Synth (video game),[73] that have an experimental approach but aren't classified as "art", maybe there should also be a category for experimental video games? Diego (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the term used descriptively, but is it a stably defined expression in its own right? In other words will the experimental games of today still be considered experimental in the future or is the expression limited to the time period in which it is used? If it's a stably defined expression then I think it makes sense to make a category like this. Otherwise there could potentially be room for a small discussion of the related term as a tangent within this article. I feel the same way about games that have been commissioned for or displayed in art exhibitions at art museums. -Thibbs (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The term "Experimental Gameplay" is certainly used with some frequency, and Google books shows a good deal of interesting results for that and ""Experimental game". I think the best place to discuss it would be at Game design, but frankly the game-art articles are in better shape and have more active discussion. There's also some overlap with this article, as art games do tend to include experimental gameplay. Diego (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to include

Place below those games that have potential to be included (clearly are artistic experiences by independent developers, but doesn't currently have known reliable sources classifying them) - in the future, maybe someone describes a source that allows us to include them. Compiling all suggestions at one place will help editors to review them from time to time. Diego (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There is a large list of art games presented here. I'm fairly certain RSes could be found from the art world to cover most of these. -Thibbs (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's another long list of potential candidates for the list. -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In 2007, indiegames.com (an RS) cofounder Tim W. published this article which links to his personal website where he lists his personal 27 top art games (here at mentisworks.org). He also links to Kristine Ploug's 16-member list from 2005 at Artificial.dk (here). I think a fair argument could be made that the mentisworks link is an RS since the author is significant. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Since there is the argument that an art game is defined by artistic intent, the authors of these games might play an important part in determining if they are "art games" or not. So this is Jason Nelson's Gamasutra Blog where he describes several of his games that are not currently on the list as "art games". Not sure if this works as an WP:SPS on the topic of itself of not. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • games from Kenta Cho and Oohara Yuuma (these games are really good, and very closely related to the art game definition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.84.58 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope problems created by the RSes - How do we deal with "art mods"?

In looking for a formal definition of the "art game" I found myself scraping for sources within the gaming community. There is interest in the term, and a lot of debate about whether it's a useful term or whether games can even be art in the first place, but there is very little in the way of a definition. Turning to sources from the art community I was much more successful. There are several formal definitions of the term coming from apparently well-respected fore-runners of the genre. I've tried to introduce the more important definitions to this WP article now, but the definitions introduce problems for the scope of this article.

Essentially what I find is that whereas the gaming community is apt to blur the lines between art games and the concept of games as art, the art community is prone to blurring the line between art game and video game art. This is a more difficult knot to unravel than "art game vs. games as art" because instead of differentiating thing from concept, we're differentiating between thing and thing. And there are really two problems with the formal definitions of "art game" that I've seen. The first is over-broad definitions that essentially equate the two concepts (i.e. If it's art and it's based on, derived from, making reference to, or looks like a video game then it is "art game"/"game art"). And the second is centered on the classification of the "art mod" (i.e. is it a game or is it just an artistic alteration?). Some of the more useful definitions I have seen use interactivity as the dividing line between the "art game" and "game art", and artistic intent as the dividing line between "art games" and regular games fitting the concept of "games as art". However there are still problems with the art mod, since art mods can be either interactive or non-interactive, and often fall somewhere in the middle (i.e. as interactive, but kaleidoscopic and barely playable experiences).

What this all means is that simple reliance on RSes isn't good enough to settle the question of the scope of this article. Instead I think we need to find a local consensus. Given that the view recognizing "art game" extremely broadly seems to be in the minority I think it's a good idea to use interactivity as the dividing line per the Rebecca Cannon and John Sharp definitions. But for the "art mod" I'm torn. I see the following options:

  1. All art mods are "art games"
  2. All art mods are "video game art"
  3. Interactive art mods (even barely-playable ones) are "art games" and non-interactive art mods (aka basically machinima) are "video game art"

I think it's important that we should have some sort of basic consensus on this. Are there any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is really only an issue for the list since the prose part of the article can (and I think does) discuss all notable perspectives on this issue. For now maybe sticking with the basic "if the RS says it's an art game then it's an art game" rule will work as the inclusion criterion for the list, but this issue may have to be resolved down the road if the list gets too long. Or we could just split it. Whatever works. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Super Columbine Massacre RPG

How is Super Columbine Massacre RPG an art game? It seems more fitting to call it an Exploitation Game or a Troll Game.

At Wikipedia we use reliable sources to support claims made in articles. If you look at the entry for "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" you can see two little numbers listed as superscripts (currently they are labeled as "[41]" and "[42]"). These numbers represent sources that are linked below. So if you click on the number it will bring you down to the sources where the corresponding source should be linked. In this case we have two sources. By reading the first source, we can see that indie game developer, Jason Rohrer, thinks that "the bottom line for SCMRPG is that it saddens us, disturbs us, puzzles us, and makes us think. It's a nice example of an art game and a perfect example of why we need independent games (because no publisher would ever fund something like this)." And then if we look at the second source we see that indie developer and Slamdance 2007 judge, Joe Bourrie "fully support the juries decision to add this Art Game [Super Columbine Massacre RPG] to the [Slamdance] roster. It breaks ground that no other game has touched, and just the fact that we are talking about it right now means that it has a strong effect on players."
So from reading these two we can see that the game has repeatedly been called an art game by reliable sources, and it looks like the general rationale is that because it moves the audience emotionally and forces them to think, and because this was the intent of the game's designer, it is a work of art as social commentary just as Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary are considered art even though they also could be labeled an "exploitation pieces" or "troll works".
Now of course this is just my personal interpretation of what the reliable sources are trying to say regarding Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but this Wikipedia article doesn't make any of those claims. By listing the game as an art game the article is merely saying that it has been identified by reliable sources as an art game. There's no reason within this article to try to come up with a rationale for how it fits the definition. Does that help? I know some people find the issue of sources to be kind of confusing at first, so it might help to read through this explanation if I wasn't clear. -Thibbs (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And to not get into too many details that don't apply to improving the article, the reason SCM RPG is considered art is that it deconstructs the kneejerk reaction that the media had to the Columbine shootings that wanted to poke fingers at video games as the cause, providing a re-interpretation of events to mock this. It may be considered trolling, but some traditional art pieces were crafted in the same mocking manner. As Thibbs points out, as long as sources claim this as an art game, we are otherwise not to judge. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I am (as you can tell) a novice editor and researcher. I will definitely check those sources out. Sometimes I succumb to moral panic too easily. I guess it's the "conservative" in me ConnerFields (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields)

It's ok. The main point I guess is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a stand on whether or not something is a certain way. The whole place is supposed to be built around neutrally summarizing and clearly presenting the claims of reliable third-party sources. If you need any help learning the ropes, by the way, make sure you check out the Tea Room where friendly and experienced editors are on hand to help new folks with problems and questions. And welcome! -Thibbs (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Skyward Sword be added...?

The game's artstyle takes inspiration from watercolor drawings...what makes it less of an art game than Okami? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.46.153 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to this list instead. It will need reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

LSD Dream Emulator

LSD Dream Emulator seems like a good example of an art game. It's surrealistic (based on the dream world). It is based on a dream journal, and came with a companion book, and music album.-ConnerFields (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)(Conner Fields) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.240.241 (talk)

Anything can be determined an art game as long as reliable sources call it an "art game" or "arthouse game". Find a reliable source that calls it that and we can add it to the list. But note that if all you can find are references to the fact that the game is full of artistic elements and that it is a good example of how games can be (or are) art then you can add it to this list instead. It will need reliable sources to be added to either list, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that as long as there is one reliable reference to support including a game on this list, there is a good chance (but not required) that the game may be notable, and so while a game is a red line or a link to a section of a larger article, there's no need to remove such games. For example, "Passage" presently is only given a section on Rorher's article, because there's little else to say about the game to make a full article, but it is clearly an Art Game (maybe the first game in the last few years to bring this area of games to light). The sources for a game can be questioned but as long as its a reasonable source, the game can be included on this list. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. To address the redlink issue though, since it is flagged, I don't think there'd be too much of a problem in delinking redlinks that seem unlikely to ever become full articles. For items where the game and the developer are bother redlinked, for example, it might not be unreasonable to delink one or the other if it looks like one would only ultimately serve as a redirect to the other. For example, it's quite possible that "a_maze@getty.edu" would only ever be a redirect to a "Tiffany Holmes" article where the game could be discussed in context with the artist. Apart from that, I guess the only strategy to reduce redlinks is to actually create the articles. I may take a swing at some of the ones I'm more interested in some time after August when I have a bit more free time. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. The existence of a reliable source is to establish solely that the information can be reliable sourced, not that the information is notable enough to be used. As an admittedly wild example, I can reliably source the fact that Obama is the President of the United States. That does not mean, however, that the information is notable enough for inclusion on *this* article. Articles or sections that are long lists quite routinely use the existence of a Wikipedia article on the topic as a litmus test for whether it meets a base level of notability to be included on a list elsewhere.
Lists like this are never supposed to be exhaustive lists. That's what your argument would require: anything that can be proven to be true on this topic must be included. That's horribly impractical and just gets space taken up by trivia. So if you reject this standard criteria used throughout Wikipedia as a way of judging what should be included and what should not, what do you propose as an alternate criteria? Anything you can source which anyone who comes here feels like adding? If so, it sounds like what you want a category page, not a list on an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article as it current stands violates WP:NOT policy, as it includes a huge list of indiscriminate information. I have therefore tagged it as such. This issue is separate from the problem with red links, as even if we removed all the redlinks there would still be too much trivia here for a subsection on an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Indiscriminate? Surely you mean indiscriminate apart from the requirement that the games must be reliably sourced "art games" as explained several times throughout the article, right? I mean your thoughts do sound good to me in general, DreamGuy, because that's usually the way I like to handle lists myself. But I've been involved with a great many discussions over list inclusion criteria and I can tell you that there is no such rule that lists must be restricted to bluelinked members only. If by consensus it is agreed that the inclusion criteria should require notability and that bluelinks should act as a proxy for notability then that's one thing, but no such consensus exists at this article. In fact the opposite is true. Check the talk page. At present this is intended as an exhaustive list and exhaustive lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reverted the listcruft tag you added since it was misleading (i.e. there is nothing poorly defined, unverified, or indiscriminate about the list. All entries have sources and all sources make direct claims that the games are "art games" or "arthouse games". Some relatively in depth research went into this article and this list does actually hit the majority of games described as art games by the RSes). From your edit summary I think what you really want to be doing is proposing a split. If you read the talk page above I think you'll see we've discussed this in the past. For the record, I'd still be in favor of a split. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thibbs is right. While blue-linked/proper articles can be used to restrict contents of lists (often the case for "List of people from X"), that's an option, not a requirement. And again, I stress - because we are requiring one source to be on this list, there is potential all of these current red-links could be blue links. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since User:DreamGuy has blanked (as "complete nonsense") the note I left on his talk page explaining that this page is not an unmaintained pile of cruft, and he's opted to reinstate the listcruft tag, I feel it's pertinent to address the impropriety of this tag directly. Let's start by taking notice of the fact that the article underwent a major overhaul and expansion last February. Since then we've had 9 goodfaith additions to the list and 8 reversions for failure to meet the inclusion criteria. So in the last 6 months we've seen this admittedly long list grow by exactly 1 member. In addition, disclaimer notes have been added to the list sections in several places and tweaked to clearly delineate the inclusion conditions. Thus an editor adding to the list will see this note (repeated no less than 8 times):

  • "Only include games that have been explicitly described by reliable sources to be 'art games', and provide a reference for the source. Other games with a strong artistic element can be put on the related list in the 'Video games as an art form' article."

The reason the listcruft tag has been removed is that it characterizes the list as "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" and this is simply false on its face. Let's break it down:

  • "poorly defined" - The definition of this list is this: "video games described as art games or arthouse games by game designers or critics". This is further clarified by the disclaimer notes bulleted above. In short the definition is quite clear and the article history shows that it is obviously maintained.
  • "unverified" - The inclusion criteria clearly say "by game designers or critics" and "explicitly described by reliable sources". Every item on the list is supported by a source that has been checked for verification - usually by several editors. Unverified items are routinely removed from the list upon their addition. I'd humbly submit that this is probably one of the best-sourced lists among those covered by WP:VG.
  • "indiscriminate" - Currently the items on this list must be (1) video games, (2) "art games", (3) verified by sources, and (4) the sources must be reliable. Apart from the clearly limiting definition, and the clearly limiting requirement for explicit RS verification, I'm not sure how else the list should be limited. Is this just a fancy way of saying that it's a long list? It's clearly a long list and it seeks to be complete within the confines of its restrictive definition, but it's not indiscriminate by any means.

I hope that clarifies the issue. Again, if overall length is the issue then there are certainly better ways to address it than deleting the list in its entirety or hoping to arbitrarily slash verifiable list members. -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the argument DreamGuy's used that if these were on a separate list article it would be okay, but that breaks down DG's original point - the list either is or isn't indiscriminate whether it is part of this article or a standalone. Yes, length might be an issue but I don't think we're close to a point where it must be split off. Every point that Thibbs explains is spot on as to why this is a reasonable list and why it is okay to leave red links. I point out again because of the fact these games have a source to be on here, that means there is a reasonable likelihood of being notable and the fact they are red links simply means someone hasn't gotten around to writing the articles to support them. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the idea of a split in the last few days. My initial feeling was that it should definitely be split, but now I'm not as certain. There is something about the list that is helpful to a full encyclopedic understanding of the topic: It provides a handy means to see the chronology of the varying kinds of art game from the early wave in the early 80s to the re-emergence in the late 90s and finally to the indie art game explosion in the late 2000s peaking in 2008. The granularity is rough since we've limited it to games with RS coverage, but it provides a basic timeline for which other chronological events like the video game crash of the early 80s can then provide interesting context for the informed reader. If and when we get to the point where it's simply too long then I think a split is inevitable, but for now it might be worth considering the benefits that an embedded list can provide here. Just a thought. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I move red link discussions should continue below at #MoS linking.

Because "black links" do not signify the product of a discussion, neither should 65 red links in one article signify 65 reasons for 65 items inclusion. Lists make excellent what is over-linking elsewhere, but their excellence is in blue.

Simply, red links are being abused. More to the point, they are being used to hold information they were not designed to hold. They could hold it anyway. Even so, never will such a hoard (as could shocked the newcomer admin) un-cloud the notability or reliability issue, nor should should classifying as over-linking (link counts) usually involve the subject of splitting or sectioning of articles. References to discussions or guidelines are often just as cloudy. It's simple. There are too many red links.

Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time. Unfortunately on Wikipedia teamwork edit-sessions are scarce; indeed unless there is something, say "WikiProject cleanup" going on, the list of red links here may just grow of course because there is not enough follow-through after the red link "assignments" made by an army of one.

The red army appears to me to have wasted its time because I am here to help clean things up per the category and template efforts. Please see #MoS linking below, where I'm offering some ideas and some services to back them up with. — CpiralCpiral 19:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a very hard time taking seriously your claim that "Whoever was trying to help by piling up all those "source certified citable" articles, guaranteeing notability, has wasted there time." Are you seriously suggesting that the reliable sources used in the list represent a waste of time? Anyway I agree that we should discuss the delinking of redlinks in the #MoS linking section below rather than in this months-old thread which might otherwise escape the notice of contributors to the article. I also hope you'll consider adopting a more civil tone. Calling your fellow editors "the red army" isn't conducive to any sort of collegial atmosphere. -Thibbs (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of several criticisms of the term "art game"

It's clear from our discussion at Talk:Video games as an art form that hahnchen believes Alex Kierkegaard to fall below the threshold for citing. I believe this is the basis for the recent removal of several lines of this article. I'm certain hahnchen is aware that there are those who disagree with his assessment so I'm surprised to see this unilateral decision on his part, but setting that aside, I think he has a point with regard to one of the criticisms. Specifically, Kierkegaard's claim that "art games that subvert or deconstruct the classical video game form represent decadence and are a degenerate artform". As far as I've seen this view is unique to Kierkegaard and is pretty fringey. Frankly most critics have better sense than to evoke language last seen in Nazi Germany even if it would makes them sound more like Nietzsche. So I agree with hahnchen as to the removal of that line. The others are more commonly-held beliefs and additional sources could almost certainly be located. This doesn't mean that I agree with stripping out the Kierkegaard source, though. -Thibbs (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite short of time currently and won't really be able to do much at all in terms of searching for additional RSes as corroboratory evidence for the two claims that are currently supported by the Kierkegaard book alone. I've suggested to hahnchen that his concerns over fringe ideas could be eliminated by moving those two claims into talk until further sources can be located. I think that the Kierkegaard refs should be left in place where they are backed up by other RSes, though, because it's been demonstrated that he's been cited by numerous 3rd party RSes and there can be no legitimate concern of fringe in cases where his refs are only backing up other RSes. As yet hahnchen is still maintaining his position that the only thing he will be satisfied with is complete removal of all mention of Kierkegaard so this compromise is effectively rejected, but I wanted to bring it up here as a suggestion that I think might provide a good way forward. I hope fresh eyes can consider the suggestion on its merits. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
OK well I did a little bit of reffing just now, but we need more. This criticism section should really be expanded if possible since it is just a bulleted list of grievances right now. I added the criticism that "art games aren't games" per hahnchen's suggestion at the "games as art" article. Whereas the Kierkegaard source provides a large number of criticisms all in one document, the other RSes are much more diffuse in their critiques and so it will take a bit of time to sift through them properly. I'll get on that when I have a bit more time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss fringe claims and claims given undue prominence

I'm confused about how the criticism section's problems could run no deeper than the Kierkegaard source alone. During the past few weeks Hahnchen has repeatedly argued that the Kierkegaard source was being used to support fringe theories and to give undue prominence to his theories. Simply removing the Kierkegaard refs couldn't address this complaint as the actual claims are still exactly as they were before Hahnchen became involved. What would be helpful would be if the specific problematic (fringe or undue) theories that were referred to in the last few weeks were at last identified and discussed for removal per User:Czar's suggested compromise at WT:VG. Can you actually identify any fringe/undue claims, Hahnchen? I'm eager to get started adding corroboratory sources and removing actual fringe claims. -Thibbs (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, I am not Hahnchen, but let me lay out the problem as I see it and without specific reference to Wikipedia policies at the moment because that keeps it simple. People are opinionated. We all have a viewpoint based on our individual experiences, and many of us feel the need to express said viewpoint. Most of us, however, are not great thinkers. Maybe we are uneducated on a topic, maybe we let our biases cloud our judgement, maybe we are just drooling idiots that cannot form a rational argument. Whatever the reason may be for any particular individual, I think we can all agree that not all opinions or ideas are created equal.
So how to we as a species tell the good ideas from the bad? We subject them to scrutiny. We train people that have the aptitude for critical analysis and rhetoric and set them loose to poke at each other's theories. Since areas like art criticism or philosophy are inherently subjective, we naturally end up with competing theories and then turn loose another set of experts good at classification to identify common elements of certain opinions and organize them into schools of thought. Then we let all these experts endlessly argue their points until there is near universal agreement or no one cares anymore and the ideas fall by the wayside. That is basically what academia spends all its time doing, to oversimplify a bit for the purpose of clarity.
So what does this mean for Kierkagaard? Well, it means that theories and ideas only gain credence when they are widely discussed, exhibit some level of support from experts in the field, and have garnered enough notoriety to warrant peer review and publication. This is the only objective way to determine which individuals have contributed something important to our collective understanding of the world, regardless of whether they are actually "right" or "wrong" in their beliefs. Without holding to this standard, every blog, letter to the editor, call-in to a program, or forum post has to be accepted as equally valid, and my theories on how the universe works become as relevant to the conversation as Einstein's, which I assume we can all agree would be laughable. Kierkagaard has been the subject of no scrutiny. His self-published work has not been subjected to analysis or criticism. Few, if any, scholars are debating the merits of his ideas or building on them in their own work. Blogs and journalists mention him from time to time, but do not actually bother to seriously engage with his ideas. To all appearances he is just one man with an opinion, which makes him just like any of the several billion other people inhabiting this planet. Responsible scholarship --and Wikipedia policy -- requires more. Indrian (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I do see evidence that some of Kierkagaard's ideas have been examined, considered, and analyzed/expanded upon by several RSes. The fact that he has a certain level of exposure in reliable sources - some couple dozen citations at least - was central to the decision to add the source in the first place along with the fact that his coverage of the topic of art game criticism amounts to a 104-page book rather than a few paragraphs as we see with the coverage from the other RSes. The reason he was selected as a reference was not completely haphazard or without regard for WP:RS. I've been actively participating at WP:VG/RS since March of last year and I can tell you that in general dozens of RS citations (journalistic and academic) and praise from 4 or 5 notable journalists is sufficient to make out the prima facie case for reliability. I've personally never seen a case where more than 15 RS source citations were needed to establish the bona fides of a source under discussion. I'm confident I could locate double that amount pretty easily, precisely because he's received a degree of exposure that belies the "internet no-one" honorific recently bestowed upon him here. The determination of any source as reliable is a judgment call of course and I accept the fact that you and hahnchen think this source falls short. It seems that no amount of evidence to the contrary is able to change this view.
But I guess what I am confused about is how simply removing the references to Kierkegaard (like this) addresses the problem of his fringe theories or unduly prominent theories. Hahnchen is fond of comparing Kierkegaard to Gene Ray, founder of the pseudoscience Time Cube theory. Imagine if the article on "time" were edited to include the line "When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth" with a citation to Gene Ray. Simply removing the citation would not solve the problem because the fringe theory would remain. For weeks the argument has been made that this article ("art game") contains fringe theories attributed to Kierkegaard. Shouldn't we discuss which ones those are and determine if they should be removed? The same goes for theories that have been give undue prominence (the other major argument made against claims reffed using the Kierkegaard source). -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree that we are trying to present opinions and not trying to promote any one over another, compared to what typically happens in fringe theories where editors trying to promote the fringe theory elevate it to try to make it "truth". Just having what various opinions that exist in the "video games as art" arena, as long as others have identified that as a possible opinion. This is a far cry from including fringe theories and trying to promote them as fact. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hahnchen is the one worried about fringe theories; I am worried about credibility. Anyone can create a blog and self publish a book and get an opinion out there. That does not make that opinion worthy of attention. Neither does a person being mentioned in blogs from time to time. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Thibbs, you have yet to provide sources that actually analyze what he is saying rather than just mentioning that he said something. A blog post or two from a site that needs to constantly post articles to generate hits is not significant coverage within the context of said blog's total output. Unless we actually have sufficient reliable sources declaring Kierkagaard an expert or acknowledging his original thought as significant then all we have is a Wikipedia editor's opinion that Kierkagaard is significant. We are not allowed to make those judgment calls. Show me some sources that certify him as an expert rather than just acknowledging that he exists, and I will have no problem with his inclusion. Indrian (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that your use of the phrase "a blog post or two" is intended here to discredit normal RSes like Kotaku, GameSetWatch, Joystiq, Siliconera, etc. It also suggests that you have discounted all of the academic references which could in no sense be described as blogs. I'm really not sure how to demonstrate to you that these sources are in fact engaging with Kierkegaard's ideas. When the entirety of at least 5 or 6 RS sources I provided (including for example one from UGO.com entitled "Deconstructing Kierkegaard") deal directly with Kierkegaard's ideas, I can only guess that you don't find them to be long enough articles. Is that it? Or is it the fact that some of them are critical of his ideas and argue against them? I'm really not sure how we can be interpreting these so differently but let's be honest about the situation: this isn't a standard level of citation for an actual internet no-one. I've reviewed plenty of sources during the last year and a half at WP:VG/RS and I can tell you that dozens of RS citations and praise from 5 or 6 big-name journalists is rather unusual. This level of reception is usually sufficient to establish a source even without certified documents attesting to expert tier opinions. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Since this is now the third forum for this conversation, I guess I should provide yet another summary of the sources engaging with Kierkegaard's ideas, praising him, and otherwise citing him. See the box below:
Evidence of numerous citations and praise for Kierkegaard
The above evidence has all been offered previously so I don't expect it to change any minds, but just for the sake of the record I think it's important to establish what exactly the anti-Kierkegaard camp is dismissing as normal accolades regularly given to internet no-ones. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Note how the writers above are published in reliable sources, and Kierkegaard is not. Thibbs highlights the Loading journal, which is a reliable source. Note how that is the only reliable source to have even mentioned the book Thibbs wants to cite in its entire publication history. This is a book with zero reviews. - hahnchen 02:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, if Kierkegaard was remotely prominent, you wouldn't have to dress up your links with so much fluff. Indiegames links to insomnia because of a magazine scan they uploaded. Siliconera highlights a list of shops to buy games from. You wouldn't have to argue that non-games are a close cousin to art-games, when if you actually read the article, you'll find that dictionary apps are not remotely art-games, and the piece had nothing to do with this subject. Most of the GameSetWatch mentions (note how he's only linked to from GamaSutra's sister blog, and never Gamasutra) are from the regular links roundup. - hahnchen 02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
More barrel scraping - I mentioned previously that the "Gameplay pipeline, med skriptspråk" paper was a Master's thesis and not a peer reviewed piece of research. Thibbs' most recent find is the "Irrevocability in Games" paper, which is a piece of coursework for a bachelor's degree, it's not even the thesis, it's someone's homework. And by "less depthy", it means that they copied a screenshot from insomnia.ac. That's it. - hahnchen 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Completely missed the point. It's not that every RS citation covers him in detail, it's that he's covered in a variety of RSes. Are you suggesting that the only thing he's ever been cited for is image hosting? That's obviously flat wrong. He's covered in greater depth in the sources you didn't attack and at those linked from the previous two talk pages we've been chatting on. Anyway the above is a thoroughly useless recycling of all your old arguments. We disagree. Get over it. You're probably not going to convince me that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards just like I'm never going to convince you no matter what evidence I offer that he is reliable. I've actually read all of the articles I've linked and they demonstrate to me that the RSes do actually pay some attention to AK. As far as I can see you've already made up your mind that he's not reliable and I don't think there's anything anyone could do to change it. This back and forth with me saying "He's not perfect but he meets the minimum threshold and covers the topic in depth" and you saying "He's pathetic! 40 words is all the coverage of him I've seen! Fringe! Undue!" is getting us nowhere. If you don't like any of the compromises offered so far, please make an effort and come up with one yourself. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion #3

I'm concerned that this return to discussing the merits of the source in talk here is unlikely to be productive as we've already tried it at two other fora previously. I just don't think we're going to agree on whether AK meets the minimum threshold for citability on Wikipedia. I've already offered plenty of evidence that he does and Indrian and Hahnchen have not accepted any of it. So there's little hope in my mind that any of us will suddenly have an epiphany and realize that the other side was correct all along.

I've come up with another idea that could represent a compromise, though I have to say I've lost a lot of stomach for compromises considering that every compromise offered so far has been resisted/rejected and I've seen no proposed compromises coming from the anti-Kierkegaard camp whatsoever. Given that both sides understand the other's position very thoroughly now, there's no need to give a detailed explanations here but a simple yes or no !vote will be good enough. I propose that the entire Criticism section be reworked with help from both sides to ensure that no fringe theories are presented and that the Kierkegaard source be shifted down into a new "Further reading" section without providing a reference to any claim. It would be unlinked since it's a book and it would only take up 87 bytes (representing 0.1% of the total article size) so undue prominence couldn't conceivably be an issue. We'd of course need additional "further reading" sources to balance out its negative POV with positive POVs and to expand other facets of the topic. Would this satisfy everyone at last? -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • As compromises go, that is not bad. I accept it. I also want to clarify something to provide greater understanding of my position, as I think I did a poor job of conveying this earlier. My problem with the sources presented is that, generally speaking, each one only addresses one particular statement or theory rather than his whole body of work. This causes two problems: no specific idea of his receives a high level of coverage, while at the same time there is no good indication that he deserves general recognition since each source is examining one specific area without addressing the question of general notoriety. If every source you provided covered one specific idea of his, I would probably be satisfied that this idea had been widely discussed. Likewise, if every source you provided recognized him as an expert general theoretician on video game topics, that would also probably be sufficient. I do not believe it is possible to infer general or specific expertise from the current sources, however, due to a lack of such focus. Indrian (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that, if you applied that criterion to other references used at Video Games articles, very few of them would come out as reliable sources. Diego Moya (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember this person is self-published, not a writer for a blog that has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The standards are different when self-publishing is involved. Indrian (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Even someone who is self-published but has been commented on by other reliable sources means to someone their opinion "matters" (favorably or otherwise). There is a danger of SPS's being used to justify controversial claims, but when we are using an SPS to cite the person's opinion, and an opinion that has been called out by others, there is no RS violations going on here. As an external link to such as a section it would be fine. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, like I said, I am fine with an external link as a compromise. Still have to see what Hahnchen thinks though, so the two of them don't end up in an edit war. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I can speak for Hahnchen when I say that there's no danger of us getting into an actual edit war. We've both been editing for long enough to know better. I hope we can soon put this behind us and move on to something productive like improving the criticism section. -Thibbs (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No external link. The level of coverage that Kierkegaard has attained is pathetic. Compare that to actual writers who are published in reliable sources. WP:V specifies - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", Thibbs claims we can ignore the "published" criteria because the links above qualify him as an expert who's opinion matters. I disagree.
This book has generated 40 words of coverage. No content is lost by removing it. The only reason it's even being discussed is that Thibbs thinks highly of it. Reliable sources do not. We go with the latter. - hahnchen 02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess we've simply hit a total deadlock. I notice hahnchen has now decided to start the same discussion all over again at a 4th forum and from previous comments I can see that he's prepared to shop for another if he doesn't get the response he wants there. A warning that we were again changing fora would have been nice, hahnchen, as would a neutrally worded summary of the dispute obviously. Anyway at this point I am convinced that:

  1. The AK source does not in fact introduce any WP:FRINGE whatsoever. No support has emerged for this claim despite several invitations.
  2. The AK source does not in fact serve to provide WP:UNDUE coverage of his ideas. No support for this claim has emerged either.
  3. AK himself has been sufficiently cited by RSes to be considered sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In actual practice, several dozen citations by academic and journalistic RSes and praise from several renowned authors is sufficient to establish reliability for most RSes including self-published blogs. Obviously I recognize that some parties wish to hold this source to higher standards and thus do not find this to be an RS.
  4. The AK source is useful, informative, and the only one currently available that even comes remotely close to "comprehensive coverage" of the topic of "art game criticism". If any similarly-cited source of equivalent scope and breadth on the topic of "art game criticism" in fact exists then please bring it forth and we can forget about AK. If, however, the proposed "improvement" of the criticism section is to excise from the entire article its most in-depth source on "art game criticism" then I have to disagree that it helps in the least.

It looks to me like Hahnchen's draconian approach has failed to gain consensus after 3 weeks. The most recently suggested compromise has been accepted by everyone so far apart from Hahnchen. I don't think the inclusion of this source harms the article in any way but it does improve it by informing readers of criticism of the genre in a lengthy 104 page book, and it provides a useful service to the article's neutrality by presenting the contrary perspective. I'm concerned that there is more effort being put into battlegrounding than into collaborating. And I'm not at all impressed by a total inability to compromise (see "no fucking compromise") when faced with deadlock arising out of a goodfaith difference of opinion. It's not remotely collegial. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's on another fora, because Wikiproject VG does not care, and bumping back to this low traffic talk page, who's editors did not care in the first place doesn't exactly bring new voices into the fold. I essentially think that the editors here were too close to their favoured self-published sources, and have allowed their own personal tastes to override the necessity for reliable sources. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We've discussed the issues of sourcing. No one disagrees that Keirkegaard is an WP:SPS, but as the SPS page says, these aren't forbidden as sources, but should be used with due care. Now, if no one else in the world ever mentioned Kierkegaard, ever, yes, stuffing his view in here would be a misuse of an SPS (the usual result of an SPS), but this is not the case. Others in clearly reliable sources have mentioned him and his art games essay alongside other viewpoints about video games as art, though generally pointing out how his view is out in left field. For purposes of talking about the various opinions on the concept video games as art, we have RS that suggest that this viewpoint be considered, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works as citable material, as long as we clearly don't swing the entire article into one supportive of his theories. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"nothing wrong with using any of Kierkegaard's SPS works" - WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Kierkegaard does not fit the definition of an expert source. Thibbs has argued that WP:SPS does not apply because these are opinions. - hahnchen 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"Thibbs has argued that WP:SPS does not apply because these are opinions", because that's what Wikipedia guidelines say. Are you in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines or not? Diego Moya (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about opinions on the concept of art games, and as long as his opinion has been discussed by others, its reasonable to include. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Consider the books coverage, 40 words in one paper. Elevating this to an external link, pointing it out as further reading would be giving this book significantly more weight than it deserves. The one paper it has been cited in, also cites 3 and a half pages of references. Would you place each of those in an external link?
And so the question goes, why - given Kierkegaard's lack of coverage in third party reliable sources, are we to elevate his self-published work on Wikipedia? - hahnchen 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Your argument up until now has been that the original version of the article gave undue prominence to the ideas contained in the book. That problem, if it had any actual merit, could not be cured by blanking the reference alone because the undue idea would still remain. It's not very hard to understand. You're now changing your UNDUE argument to say that because one piece of writing by an otherwise reliable writer hasn't been discussed by anything apart from a top Canadian university journal it's therefore unusable by Wikipedia for a "see also" section. I disagree. -Thibbs (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with citing the journal. That's a reliable source. I don't buy your argument that sources do not have to be reliable if it's an opinion. Giving Kierkegaard any kind of special elevation to "see also", over the 3 and a half pages of citations in that paper would clearly give it undue weight. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm on vacation currently and won't be able to respond much in the next few days but I'm still open to the compromise #3 above and unless someone can come up with something better, I'm definitely opposed to hahnchen's complete removal of the book which is to my knowledge the most comprehensive work on "art game criticism" produced by an author who has been frequently cited and praised by the RSes. If a better source is produced while I'm gone then go ahead and swap out the AK source. Otherwise I strongly object to its removal and will rejoin the discussion when I get back. -Thibbs (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've put the question whehther Kierkegaard can be a valid SPS RS to WP:RS/N (here). --MASEM (t) 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Singling out Kierkegaard's book is even worse in further reading is even worse in terms on promotion. How a self-published book with one citation in a paper with several pages of citations gets singled out is beyond me, the argument seems to be "I like it". Reliable sources don't. - hahnchen 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • While I am still willing to accept the compromise for the sake of wikipeace, I fully agree with Hahnchen's statements. Self-published authors are held to a higher standard by wikipedia's policies that require they be certified as experts by published reliable sources before their works are cited. None of the many sources presented here have actually accorded Kierkegaard that stature. His works are therefore not reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the best way forward is through compromise. As Indrian's comments suggest, and as I've long felt myself, the best compromises result in the giving of ground by both sides. In dropping the stick and allowing the current compromise to persist, Hahnchen can rest assured that the source he considers toxic is no longer used in any way as support for the claims making up the substance of this Wikipedia article. Any fringe ideas it has are no longer presented in Wikipedia if they ever were and whatever weight the ideas may have been given has been reduced to a single line buried in a section at the en suggesting longer sources that readers can look into more deeply if they are interested. At the same time, those who view the Kierkegaard source as helpful to a neutral and complete coverage of the topic can rest assured that one of the most in-depth sources on the topic of "art game criticism" remains available (even if only by brief mention) for readers interested in the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The compromise is that the content remains, Kierkegaard doesn't. I'm sick of having to remove this self-published book with next to zero coverage, just because it enjoys the protection of 2 Wikipedians who hold it in high regard. This entire debate has been a mockery of WP:RS, and is more akin to WP:BOOKSPAM. Any means necessary to ensure our favourite critic gets his work elevated alongside notable authors and books published by actual publishers. "those who view the Kierkegaard source as helpful to a neutral and complete coverage" consist of no reliable sources, but a few Wikipedia hype men. - hahnchen 17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely not a compromise (much less the compromise that has already been agreed to). Are you joking? You're trying to establish an edit that has not in any sense achieved consensus. This is not your own personal encyclopedia and you can't hold your breath and keep reverting to get your way.
      Due to a month-long crusade to remove the source from all of Wikipedia, every effort has been made to offer you a compromise. And you've spat at it all, meeting the collaborative spirit with rancor. I see no evidence of any effort to work with your fellow editors, but only to impose your will on them regardless of the merits of their position. It's wonderful that you've managed to get Indrian to support your underlying concerns, but even after spreading the argument to 4 talk pages, he remains the only one who shares your concerns and significantly he's agreed to the latest compromise - relegating the source to a single footnote at the tail end of the article, lost among several other sources. Although I disagree with Indrian's view on the matter, it's clear to me that he's at least interested in taking this discussion in a constructive direction. You are the only person who views this source as so dangerous to the readers as to require complete excision from all corners of Wikipedia despite clear evidence that the author has been praised and cited by dozens of journalistic and academic RSes.
      Despite your thinly-veiled accusations, this isn't in fact some elaborate plot to promote an obnoxious writer. It's an effort to provide the readership with comprehensive and neutral coverage of the article's topic. That selection of this 104-page source over the other 2-paragraph alternatives is based on the opinions of your editor-peers (i.e. the unsourced view that it is in fact a thorough criticism) is absolutely not a proper basis to dismiss it. It should come as no surprise to you that the selection of all sources in all articles comes through the discretion of your editor-peers exercising their good faith opinions in the interest of the readership. As sick as you are of having to revert war to get your way, I'm sick of the rancor and bad faith assumptions. Nobody came to Wikipedia to play at wiki-gladiators with you in your own special arena. The rest of us are here to collaborate constructively. Neither Indrian nor those who view the Kierkegaard source as useful and informative would consider the current compromise to be perfect, but that's what it means to compromise. That's the first step leading to constructive collaboration. If you can't handle that and your only frank interest here is to remove the Kierkegaard source then perhaps the best way to do so is to propose a superior alternative source. Until that time, your draconian edit represents a change contrary to consensus and is thus completely unproductive. I find the revert war games to be repugnant in the extreme and I refuse to participate in them. You've been here 8 years and yet you think this is an acceptable way to behave? -Thibbs (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "Editor-peers" are not experts, it's why we use reliable sources. Independently published, reliable sources - we trust publishers and reviewers as the filter as to what should be used, not the word of an editor-peer. I tried to remove one sentence at video games as an art form and got dragged into this Kierkegaard defence force quagmire. Going back to my first comment made, "Not sure why I have to discuss this on the talk page", thanks Wiki-gladiators, but I thought removing bookspam would be simple. - hahnchen 00:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • You have edit warred and failed to abide by the consensus of others that this is a reasonable source to include. Consensus does not require everyone to like the result. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Why should I accept a "compromise" that is against policy? You understand that the argument to keep this book boils down to "I like this book", and that the argument against it is that "reliable sources don't". This "consensus" consists of exactly same editors who deemed the book a reliable source in the first place. - hahnchen 00:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Because the book's inclusion is not flat-out against policy, so ergo edit warring over its removal is inappropriate. If it was something like a problem with BLP, you'd have every right to keep removing it, but that's not the case here. Yes, it is not the best source in the world, but there's no policy that you have been able to cite for how the book is being used here that makes it against policy, except in your own opinion. As consensus has evaluated the book differently against policy (which has been pointed out above) as a reasonable source to include for the author's opinions but nothing else, there's no reason to remove it. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Congratulations on finding a section of an article where promoting the work is "not flat-out against policy", that's a great place to be. You've Wikilawyered and found "further reading", the only place on Wikipedia where apparently anything goes. And standards of WP:V and WP:SPS fly out the window. - hahnchen 12:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
            • You're of course encouraged to suggest a superior alternative source if any exist, Hahnchen. The point is not that this source must be included but that neutrality must be preserved by presenting a comprehensive critical view of this topic. Please stop revert warring, though. -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Essentially, the reason against its removal, is that in the "further reading" section, anything goes - and that "editor-peers" suggestions take primacy over reliable sources. Sure, he doesn't meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS, but in "further reading", anything goes. Not a single editor has been persuaded that Kierkegaard is suitable, instead I've been buffeted by the same editors who felt that Kierkegaard was qualified and reliable enough to be cited in the lead of the Video games as an art form.
  • Thibbs' assertion that source is necessary because of WP:NPOV runs roughshod over the idea that NPOV is determined by reliable sources. We create articles from reliable sources, reliable sources determine the article contents. Yet Thibbs' position is that the promotional link can only be removed if there is a "a superior alternative source" essentially means that Wikipedians alone decide on the article, and they fit whichever source meets their worldview, regardless of its reliability. - hahnchen 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's been explained sufficiently above that the inclusion of Kierkegaard's work is not something out of the blue, that others have pointed to his SPS as a counterpoint on the topic of art and video games; however, these sources don't explain the details, just that he has an alternate take. Thus, a single mention among all the other opinions that already exist about art and video games, using the noted SPS (which, again, is not necessarily an automatic WP:V/WP:RS failure) is completely acceptable inside policy. You're the only one fighting outright removal against what policy and IAR allows. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Should we have any? There are definitely a few key websites that crop up again and again if you look for more info on the art game scene. Several of them also house the writings of key figures in the scene and several of these are university professors or art museum curators. So there's at least some kind of a good RS-related rationale for including them. I'll list the main ones I've run across below. Please give me input on them and on the general idea of adding external links. As with any topic like this I'm wary about letting it turn into a massive link-farm from good-intentioned people who just don't understand Wikipedia's rules.

I'm kind of torn over whether this article needs an external sources section at all. Most of the other game genre articles do not have such a section. And again, I'm concerned about the potential for this to encourage others to add their own websites as SPAM. If we do want a section like this, though, then the above are some examples of the most active related websites. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MoS linking

Referring to the Diego Moya edit summary "Who put the template? These red links are compliant with the guideline" I answer that admin ilk put it.

My reverted edit had randomly minimized the red linking. Give me the shortlist, and I will relink them, and without further need for discussion about the several guidelines (within guidelines and around), hopefully.

There were 416 unique link names. I had left a random four red.

Now there are again 484 links, the difference being red links going from 1% to 14%. So here is a (editable) list of 65 red links:

Extended content
  1. 911 Survivor
  2. a maze@getty.edu|a_maze@getty.edu
  3. Akrasia (video game)|Akrasia
  4. Alexis Andre (video game designer)|Alexis Andre
  5. Antonin Fourneau
  6. Art Game (video game)|Art Game
  7. Binary Zoo
  8. Broken Rules
  9. Calderoids
  10. Camera (simulation)|Camera
  11. Cardboard Computer
  12. Cart Life
  13. Coil (video game)|Coil
  14. Douglas Edric Stanley
  15. Earth (video game)|Earth
  16. Eddo Stern
  17. Eggregor8
  18. Famicom (art collective)|Famicom
  19. Flywrench
  20. GameLab
  21. Geoffrey Thomas (artist)|Geoffrey Thomas
  22. Glum Buster
  23. Graf War
  24. Hampa Söderström
  25. iCarus (video game)|iCarus
  26. Kian Bashiri|Kianis
  27. Lea Schönfelder
  28. Left to my Own Devices (video game)|Left to my Own Devices
  29. Lifespan (video game)|Lifespan
  30. Lonnie Flickinger
  31. Lose/lose
  32. Manuel Braun
  33. Mark Essen
  34. Nidhogg (video game)|Nidhogg
  35. Nom 3
  36. OnRamp Arts
  37. Pac-Mondrian
  38. Peter Stock
  39. Pippin Barr
  40. Prize Budget For Boys
  41. Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist
  42. Ruins (video game)|Ruins
  43. Seven Minutes
  44. Sidequest: Text Adventure
  45. Sunshine (video game)|Sunshine
  46. Swashbuckel Ur Seatbelts
  47. Sweat Life
  48. That Dragon, Cancer
  49. The Eggyard
  50. The Guardians of Tradition
  51. The Huffington Post
  52. Tiffany Holmes
  53. Torrent Raiders
  54. Tropical America
  55. Tyler Glaiel
  56. Ulitsa Dimitrova
  57. Virtanen Games
  58. Waco Resurrection|Waco Resurrection: C-Level
  59. WTF?! (video game)|WTF?!
  60. You Have To Fertilize the Egg
  61. Zach Gage

want two per section? Want a percent per article? Would you consider editing me a list from it? I can relink automatically with any kind of list (keep, remove, add) you leave me. — CpiralCpiral 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally redlinks are permissible as a guide for the creation of articles that should be created because the subject is notable and verifiable. In the list at hand all entries have at least one RS backing them up and so the verifiability criterion is met. Notability isn't established here, but other sources exist for the majority of these topics. So most of them, considered individually, would probably be fine. The template was probably put up for reasons of overlinking concerns, but of course that's a valid editorial judgment as well.
My personal view is that there are some members of the list that should certainly be redlinked. Good articles could fairly easily be written on: Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage at the very least. In fact it looks like an article has already been started on Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist here. I'm not opposed to delinking some of them, but I think the way to do it is to apply Part D of WP:BEFORE, checking to make sure that there aren't additional RSes sufficient to demonstrate notability. If the redlinked topic isn't notable then it should be delinked. Otherwise I see no real harm in keeping valid redlinks. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We have already agreed that there are too many red links. I will agree to Eddo Stern, Mark Essen, The Huffington Post, Tiffany Holmes, and Zach Gage, or whichever you say they are. I say that because I can text process the relinking (automatically). So we could continue to tailor the look and feel, and adjust. I will advocate downward adjustments until the a number is a quantity of red links exactly equal to the number of subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support, thus beginning a stance that is disregarding "article creation and deletion guides" for the most part, and refocuses on subject creation guides, plus a few article creation guides. See, when those red links are blue, what it takes to understand Art games has reached such a degree as it is being reviewed for a featured article, such as the red links at the featured list article Amateur radio frequency bands in India. But notice the lack of "article creation guidelines" (WP:CSC) in the other featured list articles (Wikipedia:Featured lists). — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have no idea what you mean by "subjects needed to support this article plus subjects this article could support" but I'm glad to see that you've agreed to stop delinking every redlink in sight. There may be redlinks that should be delinked, but please only delink those redlinks that are associated with non-notable topics. To determine which are non-notable you must make a goodfaith effort to look for reliable sources on the topic. If no RSes can be located on a redlinked topic then it's reasonable to assume that no article could be written on the topic. Simply delinking them all without looking to see if they are notable topics is not helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
During my absence I was very busy thinking about the general situation this discussion brought up. It is sad that I cannot just go by the cleanup tag and point my bot and click. I wish a red-link cleanup gnome's work could be without discernment, but here is what that would take: 1) WP:RL explained the two kinds of red links 2) The tag was placed by someone who understood the two descriptions. 3) The authors clearly demarcated the two, preferably by avoiding mixing the two in a stand-alone lists (WP:CSC), if possible. Now the two kinds of red links are these: one is the subject kind (WP:outlines), where "subjects support each other" and the other is the "article creation guideline" kind where "articles support each other". That is what I have come to believe. — CpiralCpiral 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get where you're coming from, Cpiral. Are you measuring the suitability of red links for inclusion depending on the volume and percentage of links in the page, instead of the topic that the red link points to?
The topic suitability is already measured. It is suitable. (For an understanding of red-link functionality that is suitable-topic related, namely scoping functionality, see what I wrote in MoS talkspace. The suitablity for editors differs from readers. By "a percentage of links", I'm speaking for the readers. Thibbs has given me a list to keep, and I intend to relink to his recommendations for the editorship here. — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm the first one to prefer to follow the spirit of guidelines above their letter; my pointing to WP:Red link was a reminder that there are cases where a red link provides value, and in my opinion most if not all the instances in this list are thus valuable "legitimate red links", as they inform of topics for which an article or section can likely be written (and could signal when such article has been written).
What is your rationale though for wanting to reduce the number of red links? What would be gained by turning them in plain text? Diego (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Readability, that readership-orientation value we'd better have. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If the only reason is readability, the rules are not the same as for plain text; as this is a list, one red link at each line is OK, and in this case actually better than the black text. At least all game names should be red linked. Having one red or blue link per line helps readability; in the version where some games are written as black text, it's more difficult to scan the start of each line. It could be Ok to remove the second red link for the game publisher at lines where both are red links. Diego (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. The list items with sentence structures, if all black, are not as quick to read. I looked at some other lists and saw the "lead effect" where the first word is almost always blue link, and how red link is the same light, and how black would not start as well. Your point is that, like syntax highlighting
class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!"); // Print "Hello World!"
    }
}

or 

    print "Hello World!\n";

for programming languages, readability is increased. Your red is for editor readability. A reader, by definition, is new to the article, carefully scans every word in a sequence and is gone with games' names and linked faces, maybe forever. Similarly, developers of computing apps have a different relationship with their "source code" than do their awed users gawking at the wonders of it all.

I appreciate the answers here very much. They'll compile very well with other talk space material and a survey of wp:featured lists to help (I hope somehow) WP:Red link and the MoS. I think it's yet another complicated aspect of Wikipedia that'll eventually simplify somewhat. — CpiralCpiral 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of That Dragon, Cancer, Papo & Yo, and Papers Please

Hanchan is attempting to remove these three games, as described from this article [76] claiming they aren't art games. Yet, by the article and the nature of the 2002 definition that's mentioned in the lead, these are games meant to illicit an emotional reaction from the player. Given all the other games on the list, I'm not seeing how these aren't as appropriate here as the rest. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

List of arthouse games

At the top of the section, in the comments, it is written - "This list includes only games described as "art game" by reliable sources. For other games with a strong artistic element, please put them on the related list in the "Video games as an art form" article."

I did not write this, but I agree with it. This list should be a concise list of the games which have been described as "art games", not any game that has been likened to art. The latter can go in Video games as an art form. I'm not the only one to remove entries that do not fit this limited (by definition) criteria.[77] [78] [79]

I removed several entries sourced to this WSJ story today. It does not describe any of them as art games or arthouse games, only that they dealt with adult themes and were presented at a Baltimore arts and games festival. This would include them in Video games as an art form, not art game.

Masem's (self-defined) definition of art game, are games that "evoke emotional responses". This is ridiculously broad, encompassing horror and joy. Games that deal with adult themes are not art games by definition, they should not feature on this list by default. - hahnchen 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"The term "art game" was first used academically in 2002 and it has come to be understood as describing a video game designed to emphasize art or whose structure is intended to produce some kind of reaction in its audience". Which is what these games are designed to do per the source. No, I don't think that definition would include horror games, which are meant to scare the player but not generate an emotional response. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Read the comment at the top of the list. "games described as "art game" by reliable sources" - by reliable sources, not by Wikipedia editors. Horror games were just to poke a hole in your "evoke emotional responses" definition. GTA V produces "some kind of reaction in its audience", applying that definition is useless and arbitrary. - hahnchen 20:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, I am the guy who wrote the "games described as "art game" by reliable sources" wording in the lead. When the list was split from Video games as an art form, I understood that this was done to make a clear distinction between "arthouse games" created by a small independent studio a la art house film, and every other artistic game.
If we depend on sources describing the emotional qualities of the game, instead of explicitly calling the game a "work of art" or "art game", there wouldn't be a way to distinguish both lists, and they could very well be merged. I don't care much either way, as long as all games with a source describing them are kept at at least one of the lists. Each game removed from here should be included at the other list, or at least copied to the talk page per WP:PRESERVE. Diego (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I generally agree. I'd leave this list for games that are explicitly "art game"/"artgame"/"arthouse game"/"art video game"/etc., but rather than just deleting the other artistic games I'd shift them to the "video games as art" article. -Thibbs (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

SIGGRAPH Aesthetics of gameplay

I added this new online exhibit by SIGGRAPH here [80] including the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk (which just checking google, this is a bit we could go more into). I debated between adding it here or over at Video games as an art form, and felt the intent of SIGGRAPH's exhibit was to emphasis games that used visuals and audios intrinct to gameplay, makings more art games than games that are works of art. I'd like to toss the idea if this is the best for this exhibit and ideas behind it, or should that be at the other article. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good fit here. the gesamtkunstwerk concept seems particularly well-adapted to video game analysis as they are such intrinsically complex artworks - with visuals, music, story, etc.. I'll look more into this when I get some free time. I've been really busy recently. -Thibbs (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Empathy games"

From today's Telegraph [81].

I would argue that these fall under this article (art game) vs "video games as a form of art", if only because here it is the intent of these games to be an art game, rather than the reaction from critics/etc. that determine the game to be a work of a art. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Also they have this article about using games to help them cope with personal issues [82], which again, I think these all would thus come under "Art game" since it is by design, not by reception. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Art game. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Art game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

copyedit request

I've begun copyedit on the first half of the article, and will return to it tomorrow - Reidgreg (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay! I've completed copyedit on the article, and I want to thank Thibbs for specifically requesting attention to tone issues while preserving content. (I appreciate not having to worry about cutting material.) I've tried to pay particular attention to editorial tone. Some notes:

  • In the first half of the article, the first two sentences of the third paragraph of Overview started "It is important to draw a distinction". This could be viewed as lecturing, telling the reader what to think rather than presenting them with the information. I rephrased it but it's very, very minor, and I probably wouldn't have changed it if this wasn't a specific concern.
  • There's another kind of editorializing in how some of the quotes are presented. In the form "Source suggests quotation", suggests is a weak term implying the information in the quotation isn't as important or reliable as information presented elsewhere. I changed these to the more neutral "stated" or "said".
  • I found some of the direct quotations had been altered or paraphrased. This is a bigger issue. Quotations should be faithfully reproduced, with only minor typographical changes (eg: changing bold to italics for emphasis, use of single or double quotes) and correction of obvious typos MOS:PMC. I've tried to restore the quotes from sources, as I've been able. If the paraphrasing is preferred, quotation marks should be removed.
  • As an example of the above, there's this: she defined "political/agenda-based art games" as "art games that have some sort of ulterior motive other than aesthetics and whose basis is in using the medium of computer games to bring an issue to the public's, or at least the art world's, attention in order to attract support and understanding for a cause." This is actually multiple quotes from the source presented as a single coherent thought. Being faithful to the source while preserving content, I've rewritten it as: she defined "political" or "agenda-based art games" as art games that "have some sort of ulterior motive other than aesthetics" and whose basis is in "using the medium of the computer games to bring an issue to the publics, or at least the art worlds, attention in order to attract support and understanding for a cause." Under MOS:PMC the possessive apostrophes could be added.
  • Near the beginning of Overview there is a quoted section: (1) "a defined way to win or experience success in a mental challenge," (2) "passage through a series of levels (that may or may not be hierarchical)," or (3) "a central character or icon that represents the player." While checking the punctuation in the source, I noticed that it could alternatively be presented as a single quote with the numbers inserted: "[1] a defined way to win or experience success in a mental challenge, [2] passage through a series of levels (that may or may not be hierarchical), or [3] a central character or icon that represents the player." Either way is fine, though the second may be less likely to be altered/challenged.
  • Wikipedia uses the logical quotation style (MOS:LQ), so in several cases I moved punctuation outside of the quotation marks, where the punctuation is not part of the quoted material. It's not an aesthetic I especially like, but there are clarity and accessibility issues.
  • The MoS recommends Plain English though I appreciate a certain sophistication of language shown in presenting this subject matter. One might consider rewording some of the polysyllabics (eg: contemporaneous, procedurality).
  • On the lists in the second half of the article, descriptions and summaries of the games can be made from primary sources (ie: the game itself). However, analysis may be considered original research and would benefit from having a source; similarly when stating themes or the artist's intentions. I placed {{citation needed}} tags on some of these. (It might be a matter of moving the present references to the right.)
  • One game is described as a "surreal horror neo-noir on rails action adventure game". That's five or six genres; normally descriptions of artworks are limited to their three most-respresentative genres.
  • The game flOw is described as "A spare action game". This may be a typo of space.
  • The names of art exhibitions are in double quotes in the first half of the article, and italics in the second half (lists). The way I read the MoS, major exhibitions should be italics and minor ones in double quotes, but I'm never sure how to draw that distinction. I'd suggest picking one style and applying it consistently throughout the article. Given that video game titles are in italics, there might be less chance for confusion in using double quotes for exhibitions.

Sorry for the long notes. I hope this is received well. I enjoyed the article quite a bit and, aside from the altered quotations, I didn't feel there were major problems. I'll keep it on my watchlist for a couple weeks and welcome any questions or comments. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is excellent, Reidgreg! Thank you so much for your help. I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but so far it looks like this is exactly what the article needed. The next step will be to request a re-evaluation from the folks at WP:VG, and I'm pretty sure that this will be able to be upgraded to B or better. Thanks again for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've just reviewed the whole thing thoroughly and I think the changes you've made, Reidgreg, are excellent. I've made further changes per the points you made in bullets 4 (correcting the possessives per MOS:PMC), 5 (merging the 3-point quote into a single quote with "[1]" insertions), and 11 (quotations instead of italics for exhibit naming consistency) above. Everything else I agree with and I will look into bullets 7 (rewording polysyllabics), and bullets 8-10 (citations for listed games) if and when I can get a little free time. Thank you very much again for your excellent work. -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Thibbs! I think it's a great article, please keep up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_game/Archives/1&oldid=1136293391"