StrategyWiki talk:Guide/Scope

Things to think about

 * 1) I believe the scope will change some day, when we have a larger community, more people, and less importance leaning on actual corporately published games.
 * 2) As long as a game is popular, how much publicity the game has and how much money it earns people shouldn't be a factor.
 * 3) SW should be able to cover free games.

I don't think there's much to debate, but yeah, small unknown shareware games don't really fit the bill, but I know that some games have gotten quite popular (i.e. Little Fighter and its sequels). I just think the more games we include the better, because we'll gain more users and have more "portals" for people to collaborate on. --User:Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to disagree with Notmyhandle. If we allow freeware and shareware games, it would make StrategyWiki an ideal grounds for advertising one's game that they just invented. The site would be cluttered with front pages filled with sales pitches on why this person's game is the best without actually giving anything more than basic strategy, presumably because basic strategy is as in-depth as the game goes. Games like that really don't even deserve a single page here on StrategyWiki. If a game is completely common sense based and the controls and such are built into the game (which many are), there is NO POINT WHATSOEVER of hosting it here (except for advertising purposes, which should go against our scope). Also, I think that the criteria should be revised so that each one doesn't say "if it meets this criterion, it can go in, just ignore all the rest." If you really want that on every single game, what's the point of even having this page? Every game could be covered because every game fits at least one of the criterion which say "if yes, ignore the rest." -- 11:19, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * But I said that a game has to be popular... --User:Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I guess I DO agree with NMH on one point then :P (publicity and money shouldn't matter anyway). -- 17:30, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Please define popular. -- Prod (Talk) 12:36, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Played by a lot of people or well known. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I think that the scope should just be "It has to be a video game or prominently related to video games, including major Flash portals containing a significant number of Flash games." I also believe that Flash games that have enough length to include a guide should be within the scope.  We have a guide on Oh Dango Jam, and it certainly fits within the scope.  However, I don't think that games made using a game maker program of some sort should be in the scope unless it's a popular game made with the software.  This would include mods of games such as Tribes RPG for Tribes 1 and Alien Swarm for UT2004.  Additionally, for a mod of a game to fall into the scope, it would have to in some way change the gameplay enough to warrant its own guide.  Tribes RPG and Alien Swarm are essentially different games, even in different genres made with their games' respective engines and the Tribes 1 and UT2004 guides would not be enough to cover the mods because of how far they deviate from their base games.  --Tathar [[Image:Tathar.jpg|32px]] (talk|contribs) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (CST)


 * I can't believe believe this hasn't gotten more talk than it has, but yes - these things warrant a case by case assessment (see January 14th response to the "Flash Games" section below). -- 03:32, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Flash Games
Portals such as Ijji and Miniclip are legitimate sources for games that wouldn't get out of hand. I believe these games should be allowed as part of our scope, but represent the most minimal of requirements met for inclusion. Games such as those on addictinggames.com and newgrounds.com, however, should not be allowed unless there is some considerable hype or notability. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but most of those games are so simple that they do not require guides. For the ones that do, it will have to be determined that they fit into one or more other categories (like notability and whatnot). Games that seem to have no English media mention whatsoever (I am not counting mentions in languages other than English) do not belong here on StrategyWiki. We could also use a policy concerning removing guides outside of our scope. What I am doing right now is just deletion and a message on the creator's talk page for the first two times, then a protected redirect to the Scope page for the third time. -- 16:44, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to disagree with your assessment of Newgrounds games being out of our scope. If a Flash game is large enough to have a guide, it shouldn't matter how notable it is as long as that guide is in-depth.  Flash games have notoriously minimal press coverage even if they are so complex that a guide would be necessary to expect someone to complete it.  For example, Bowmaster Prelude is a very complex game, and once Bowmaster 2 comes out, I can only assume that it will have too much depth for it not to be included in our scope.  --Tathar [[Image:Tathar.jpg|32px]] (talk|contribs) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * I already explained this in IRC, but the depth of a Flash game needs to be more important than notability regarding our scope. Spank the Monkey is very notable, but it's so simple that there's no way to make a guide for it.  Alternatively, Oh Dango Jam is not, but it has too much depth to not need a guide, especially for people that only speak English.  Skizzerz tells me that we decided to keep the Oh Dango Jam guide, so I shouldn't be in the minority by saying this.  --Tathar [[Image:Tathar.jpg|32px]] (talk|contribs) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * I think some Flash games belong. If it weren't for the StrategyWiki guide for NANACA†CRASH!!, I would have never figured out how to play.  Also, StrategyWiki first introduced me to Flash Flash Revolution, which I now enjoy and play almost every day.  So if I am an example of a person who benefited from StrategyWiki's coverage of Flash games, how many others might be similarly pleased that these guides exist? New User 19:07, 21 November 2007 (CST)


 * Indeed, FFR actually fits within the scope, however NANACA†CRASH!! and ODJ do not. For games like these, we have to take them on a case by case basis, otherwise we will end up with a Spank the Monkey guide (ahaha).  I think that the people who have posted here understand this, and should not be afraid to begin a guide on a game they feel would be accepted here, however we should not open the scope to freely allow flash games as this would be a clear invitation to what we don't want.  We should, however, put a notice that games that may meet the scope should be talked about in the Community Issues before adding.  -- 03:32, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Unavailable Games
There's on sentence about games no longer available that bugs me a little:
 * games that fulfill the criteria but are now completely unplayable ... are still valid for inclusion here because they are of historical significance

What's the point in having a page (or strategy guide) for a game that nobody's able to play anymore? I can see why historical significance would be a valid criteria for inclusion on an all-purpose videogames information wiki, but so long as this site's focus is on strategy guides, I don't see why we should use up database space on games that aren't playable - who needs a guide for it if nobody can play it? -aniki21 08:49, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


 * Technically, some games aren't legally available, and if playability was a factor in inclusion, could kill off games considered popular but couldn't be reached because they are on an obsolete format (e.g. NES, Arcade, etc.) Because this is offset with emulators, items with historical significant should be kept since it can be rewritten to another platform. Games such as Starfox 2 is debatable, since it was never released (aside from a prototype cartridge rom dump), but aren't an issue if there's enough information about them (e.g. how some features get worked into a newer version).
 * It's acceptable to have the "secondary" criteria apply to the stubs, as there's no real need to have several empty pages of obsolete games that give very little information. --Sigma 7 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Invaild Aim Statment
You stat that the aim of this wiki is to document "all" games but there are two big problems with this statment.
 * 1) It should be all video/eletronic games or on those bases
 * 2) Not all games are said to be real games such as - Flash, web-based, freeware, homebrew, and open-source games so the word all games can't really apply to the aim of this wiki.  --plethebest 10:07, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
 * To address point 1, the wording of our goal: "to become an all-encompassing video game strategy resource" directly states that our aim is exclusive to video games. To address point 2, we do have guides for "Flash, web-based, freeware, homebrew, and open-source games" on this site.  That is not incompatible with our criterion for notability.  Bejeweled is, no doubt, a very notable flash game.  Other flash games that less than 1% of the gaming population have heard of are not notable. Procyon (Talk) 10:30, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Never heard of Bejewled plethebest 11:24, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Try getting a cell phone and going to the games section on it. I guarantee a Bejeweled demo will be there. -- 15:11, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Mine doesn't have it. But yeah, Bejeweled and its spawns are classic, free, often prize-based flash games.  -- 23:42, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Large player base
What's a good change to the "large player base" requirement? In particular, it is close to conflicting with the portion that says popularity isn't a factor and as such should be modified slightly. Some options include:
 * 1) Leaving it as-is, and changing the popularity statement to just refer to the unpopularity of a game.
 * 2) Defining "player base" for those who try exploring the game as much as possible, rather than those who simply go through a game once and continue to the next. This (obviously) will force exclusion of simple games unless you can find a way to draw blood from a stone, and doesn't factor in those who simply play a game to see what it's about.  However, this may require making changes to the size of the player base as not everyone is that detailed in examining the game.
 * 3) Define "player base" as at least medium-term play, where a game is played more than once or for a few months/weeks.  This option keeps out random freeware, but allows inclusion of "free games" that keep specific metrics on popularity.

I'm siding towards medium-term, but would like to see comments on that before the policy gets changed. --Sigma 7 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)