Talk:Ratchet & Clank (2016 video game)
(Redirected from Talk:Ratchet & Clank (PlayStation 4))
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Pricing
[edit]Triple A games retail for $59.99, this game is a AAA release but it will retail for $39.99. I think this is notable since it is a unique case. Who disagrees? Osh33m (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Price is deemed inappropriate for the article. See WP:VGSCOPE#8. You may need to find some (extremely) reliable sources who had written articles regarding this being cheaper than usual AAA titles to prove that the game's price is noteworthy. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, WP:NOPRICE says the same thing. You'll want some reliable sources documenting this as an important aspect of the game's marketing, or later down the line, success in the market. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not really as hard as you guys think. We can agree that GameSpot is reliable yeah? Right in its headline this article points out how it is cheaper than the usual MSRP. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps4-s-ratchet-clank-runs-at-1080p-30fps-is-about-1/1100-6427990/ Osh33m (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here are a couple more http://gameidealist.com/news/ratchet-and-clank-ps4-priced-cheaper-than-your-standard-new-release/ this one covers exactly the reason why I think it is notable. Here's another one http://www.gamepur.com/news/19137-dev-why-ratchet-clank-ps4-runs-1080p30fps-addresses-gameplay-length.html what more do you want? Osh33m (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at other video game articles on Wikipedia, there are no prices available; Wikipedia is NOT a place for listing prices for goods and services.--OfficerAPC (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- One reliable source is not enough. If multiple critics had written their articles with the headline "Ratchet & Clank is cheaper than you think" then it would have been appropriate. Having one reliable source is not enough to prove that it is noteworthy. (Therefore I use plural. Reliable sources) Gamepur and Gameidealist are not reliable sources. "Noteworthy" means that it is significant that it matters to everyone, (e.g. the ridiculous Battlefront season pass) not simply being unusual. We can include it if it is related to the game's development though. Besides, price of a game changes all the time. You can get Spec Ops The Line and Hardline, two AAA games extremely cheap right now. Therefore, price at launch is not really significant. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd even be okay with one source, if it were both reliable, and saying something of significance. For example, the GameSpot source only states the price, nothing else. It says nothing about the significance of the price. That's very different from, for example, the price of the original 3DS. There's tons of commentary on that. Many sources felt was too high, and resulted in poor initial sales, which lead to a price cut far sooner than most systems, which in turn sparked sales. Both the initial high price, and early price cut, received lots of commentary for its effect on its release. Your GameSpot source just essentially says "Hey, its 40 bucks, which we expected because of a leaked Amazon listing". There's no importance to that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay first of all, I showed three sources, not one. Second of all, the original demand was, and I quote, "(extremely) reliable sources who had written articles regarding this being cheaper than usual AAA titles to prove that the game's price is noteworthy" - and that's what I did, the Gamespot source is reliable and regarded Ratchet & Clank being cheaper than usual AAA titles. Going by the original demand, that's supposed to prove that it is noteworthy. Thirdly, I'll quote the Gamepur source which states "Ratchet & Clank for PlayStation 4 carries a price tag of $40 and this lead many fans to believe that gameplay length will be shorter considering the fact that it does not carry price tag of $60. James has assured loyal fans of the series that Ratchet & Clank for PlayStation 4 is longer than previous Ratchet and Clank game Into The Nexus." -So it is obvious that news outlets find that this price tag is notable, and for whatever nonsensical reason you guys want to keep it off of here is beyond me; it's not to promote or advertise the game in any way, but to simply point out that it is $20 less than what games usually are supposed to retail for, as pointed out by these sources. Osh33m (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I have responded again, telling you what "noteworthy" should be and what you have done hasn't fulfilled the requirement yet. (important, significant to lots of people, not just unusual) Gamepur is not considered as a reliable source. The Gamepur source claims that fans are worried about the game's short length, but once again we don't care about their fans unless their opinions were covered by multiple reliable sources. Not listing price is a policy. You should have known that you are going to meet lots of resistance and fulfill high requirements when it comes to making policy exception. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how you expect me to tell the future like that, but I'm just doing what I thought was right; adding notable information to wikipedia. You should at least appreciate the fact that I started a conversation instead of reverting your edit. here's another one http://gearnuke.com/insomniac-explains-ratchet-clank-ps4-will-different-experience-details-length-game/ and another one http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2015/06/ratchet_and_clank_ps4_wont_break_the_bank although the second one is factually incorrect and pointed out in its comment section. anyways, any way you try to spin it, the fact that this game launched at a discount price is literally notable by the definition of the word but if no one is going to budge then i'll move on. Osh33m (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clear guidelines for this exact thing exist, something notable to you doesn't mean it's notable to Wikipedia. And how do either of those links make the case for notability? You're just reaching for anything to do with the price now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I'm reaching for anything to do with the price because it is literally a notable fact about this game, obviously, otherwise articles wouldn't be written about or bothering to mention it. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is the "clear guidelines" but whatever. Another nonsensical debate lost because of inconclusive rules. Osh33m (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Everybody here disagrees with you, and I can't even think of another article that mentions a game's release price, even in actually notable cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see what's inconclusive. The rule says don't mention price unless price is an integral aspect of the subject, stated as such by reliable sources. You provided a bunch of unreliable sources ("gamepur", etc) and a reliable source that said "The price is 40" and nothing more. You didn't meet the standard. It all seems very clear cut. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- A "bunch" of unreliable sources? So now we're saying Gamespot and Pushsquare are unreliable too? Yes I can tell everybody disagrees and like I said I find it nonsensical and ridiculuous that no one here finds the information notable but what else is there to say? This discussion is over. Again, just appreciate that I started a conversation instead of reverts. Osh33m (talk)
- Not sure why you jumped to those conclusions from what I was saying. I was referring to Gamepur, GameIdealist, and Gearnuke when I was referring to "a bunch of unreliable sources", and GameSpot as the reliable source that states "The price is 40" and nothing else. I had missed the PushSquare source, though it seems to pretty much be the same as the GameSpot one - a very short article with nothing of substances other than "Hey, the game is 40." Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Look I didn't jump to conclusions here, I got to the conclusions step by step. The first was starting this discussion on the talk page and the next few was everyone asking for, in my opinion, an unreasonable amount of accuracy when what the Gamespot and Pushsquare articles in my opinion already mention what's notable - and that's that the game is $20 cheaper than it's supposed to be. Osh33m (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you jumped to those conclusions from what I was saying. I was referring to Gamepur, GameIdealist, and Gearnuke when I was referring to "a bunch of unreliable sources", and GameSpot as the reliable source that states "The price is 40" and nothing else. I had missed the PushSquare source, though it seems to pretty much be the same as the GameSpot one - a very short article with nothing of substances other than "Hey, the game is 40." Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- A "bunch" of unreliable sources? So now we're saying Gamespot and Pushsquare are unreliable too? Yes I can tell everybody disagrees and like I said I find it nonsensical and ridiculuous that no one here finds the information notable but what else is there to say? This discussion is over. Again, just appreciate that I started a conversation instead of reverts. Osh33m (talk)
- Of course I'm reaching for anything to do with the price because it is literally a notable fact about this game, obviously, otherwise articles wouldn't be written about or bothering to mention it. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is the "clear guidelines" but whatever. Another nonsensical debate lost because of inconclusive rules. Osh33m (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clear guidelines for this exact thing exist, something notable to you doesn't mean it's notable to Wikipedia. And how do either of those links make the case for notability? You're just reaching for anything to do with the price now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how you expect me to tell the future like that, but I'm just doing what I thought was right; adding notable information to wikipedia. You should at least appreciate the fact that I started a conversation instead of reverting your edit. here's another one http://gearnuke.com/insomniac-explains-ratchet-clank-ps4-will-different-experience-details-length-game/ and another one http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2015/06/ratchet_and_clank_ps4_wont_break_the_bank although the second one is factually incorrect and pointed out in its comment section. anyways, any way you try to spin it, the fact that this game launched at a discount price is literally notable by the definition of the word but if no one is going to budge then i'll move on. Osh33m (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I have responded again, telling you what "noteworthy" should be and what you have done hasn't fulfilled the requirement yet. (important, significant to lots of people, not just unusual) Gamepur is not considered as a reliable source. The Gamepur source claims that fans are worried about the game's short length, but once again we don't care about their fans unless their opinions were covered by multiple reliable sources. Not listing price is a policy. You should have known that you are going to meet lots of resistance and fulfill high requirements when it comes to making policy exception. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay first of all, I showed three sources, not one. Second of all, the original demand was, and I quote, "(extremely) reliable sources who had written articles regarding this being cheaper than usual AAA titles to prove that the game's price is noteworthy" - and that's what I did, the Gamespot source is reliable and regarded Ratchet & Clank being cheaper than usual AAA titles. Going by the original demand, that's supposed to prove that it is noteworthy. Thirdly, I'll quote the Gamepur source which states "Ratchet & Clank for PlayStation 4 carries a price tag of $40 and this lead many fans to believe that gameplay length will be shorter considering the fact that it does not carry price tag of $60. James has assured loyal fans of the series that Ratchet & Clank for PlayStation 4 is longer than previous Ratchet and Clank game Into The Nexus." -So it is obvious that news outlets find that this price tag is notable, and for whatever nonsensical reason you guys want to keep it off of here is beyond me; it's not to promote or advertise the game in any way, but to simply point out that it is $20 less than what games usually are supposed to retail for, as pointed out by these sources. Osh33m (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd even be okay with one source, if it were both reliable, and saying something of significance. For example, the GameSpot source only states the price, nothing else. It says nothing about the significance of the price. That's very different from, for example, the price of the original 3DS. There's tons of commentary on that. Many sources felt was too high, and resulted in poor initial sales, which lead to a price cut far sooner than most systems, which in turn sparked sales. Both the initial high price, and early price cut, received lots of commentary for its effect on its release. Your GameSpot source just essentially says "Hey, its 40 bucks, which we expected because of a leaked Amazon listing". There's no importance to that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- One reliable source is not enough. If multiple critics had written their articles with the headline "Ratchet & Clank is cheaper than you think" then it would have been appropriate. Having one reliable source is not enough to prove that it is noteworthy. (Therefore I use plural. Reliable sources) Gamepur and Gameidealist are not reliable sources. "Noteworthy" means that it is significant that it matters to everyone, (e.g. the ridiculous Battlefront season pass) not simply being unusual. We can include it if it is related to the game's development though. Besides, price of a game changes all the time. You can get Spec Ops The Line and Hardline, two AAA games extremely cheap right now. Therefore, price at launch is not really significant. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at other video game articles on Wikipedia, there are no prices available; Wikipedia is NOT a place for listing prices for goods and services.--OfficerAPC (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, WP:NOPRICE says the same thing. You'll want some reliable sources documenting this as an important aspect of the game's marketing, or later down the line, success in the market. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The price simply being mentioned in an article doesn't make it notable, as already explained above. You can't just pick and chose what sites you considered reliable for your own agenda either, as it defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do not agree that it is not notable, and I disagree that it defeats the purpose; I say the opposite; it serves the purpose of wikipedia. But I'm not trying to put it on anymore because I realize it's a lost cause. Osh33m (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Plot expansion
[edit]The plot is incomplete, please expand it a.s.a.p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Naming
[edit]Why should it be titled “Ratchet & Clank (2016 video game)”? Is that not too excessive? Why can it not just be titled “Ratchet & Clank (2016)” or “Ratchet & Clank (PS4)”?
―PapíDimmi (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because we have guidelines at WP:VG/GL that determine how to distinguish a game from similarly named titles that we have used for years. It's also general WP policy to avoid using years alone to distinguish similarly named titles. Further, because of the film, we need to distinguish the game from the file. (2016 video game) is the proper distinguishing phrase to use. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk about player reception not only critics.
[edit]The reception section only talks about how companies rated the game, but this doesn't show the full picture. Long term fans have criticized the game a lot. This should be stated in the article. A source could be a video by TheGamingBritShow who made a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kD_QhYgIA4) summing up the opinion of many long time fans.