From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current staff lounge page.

November 2012 | December 2012 | January 2013




WiiU button template

I just put together a {{WiiU}} controls template and slapped some button images together. Most of the images are recycled, but they should do unless somebody wants to make better ones or whatever. Wanderer (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Wanderer! --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Series categories with only two games

This issue may have been archived (given that it was first brought up on this page over a month ago), but I still feel that categories for series with only two games are unnecessary; they are not really series as such, but duos of games from their respective time periods, and (in most cases) there has been no indication that there are ever going to be any further titles in them (one notable exception, however, is when Rally-X Arrangement and Dig Dug Arrangement were released as part of the compilation arcade game Namco Classics Collection Vol. 2 in 1996, as both the Rally-X and Dig Dug series were only comprised of two games prior to that point). Namcorules (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My take on it is if a reader comes to a page (that includes any of us), they may ask "What other games are in the series?". If they only see a followed by link, the question remains unanswered, only telling them a possible one other game. If we have a series cat and a series template, the question is quickly resolved by looking at either one. It may be a bit more work, but it standardizes things. I don't see why three makes a series more than two. A duology may have fewer titles than a trilogy, but it is no less a series. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
A duology may be no less a series than a trilogy, but the main pages for games in two-game templates would just link back to one another (as they would in two-game categories); there used to be templates for two-game "series" on Wikipedia (including one for Dragon Spirit and Dragon Saber, which is why I originally brought up this issue on here towards the end of October) at one time, but they have all been deleted since last time I saw them, possibly because they were decided against by the Wikipedia administrators for that same reason I have mentioned. Namcorules (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. I also couldn't find the examples you think you saw on Wikipedia, but it's not relevant, since we aren't Wikipedia. A series cat can have additional details not described on each main page of the duology. The template reassures users that we are aware that there are only two in the series. Plus, if a third game does get developed, it can more easily be added to the template. Creating series templates for individual games - now that's something that we shouldn't do. But for two it still makes sense to me (I prefer using the nav at the bottom, rather than looking at the next in the series in the infobox, because I'm not always sure how many games are in a series). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The examples that I saw on Wikipedia (but I have to admit it was a few years ago) were for Tank Battalion and Tank Force, Bosconian and Blast Off, Pole Position and Pole Position II, Baraduke and Bakutotsu Kijūtei, Sky Kid and Sky Kid Deluxe, also Thunder Ceptor and 3-D Thunder Ceptor II; I also never said we were Wikipedia, or that we should create series templates for one-shot games (even though my personal favourite Namco game, Beraboh Man, which happens to be a one-shot, did get a spin-off in the form of Pistol Daimyo no Bōken). However, I do prefer using the "followed by" and "preceded by" links in the infobox, even though I did create templates for the Gee Bee, Dig Dug, Xevious, Mappy, Druaga and Rolling Thunder series in October - but all six of those series were comprised of three or more titles. Namcorules (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand your preference, but others may share mine, too. I don't have a justification to rule against duologies. I don't see why leaving out duology templates and categories is a good idea. To stay consistent with the layout of our other games that are in series, we should continue to create series templates and categories for duologies. The template my be redundant, in a way, to the infobox navigations, but it provides more info than the infobox. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You never know when a third game might be made. A lot of these games also come as part of compilations which can be included in the template. -- Prod (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Prod; a third game could be released at any time, just like how Rally-X Arrangement and Dig Dug Arrangement were released as part of Namco Classics Collection Vol. 2 in 1996, when both series had only been comprised of two games for fifteen and eleven years respectively. The Bosconian, Pole Position, Baraduke, Sky Kid and Dragon Spirit games have also appeared on various Namco Museum compilations for the Sony PlayStation over the years - along with Assault and its Japan-only upgrade Assault Plus. Namcorules (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Controls tables - REDUX

Bringing this up again. There are discussions all over the place about it. But Skizzerz has put together a mockup here. Lets pick one and update the guide. Personally, I prefer the first or the last ones. -- Prod (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally like the last one the best (Action column on left, with right-aligned text). For a left-to-right language, we start reading from the left hand side of the page/screen. Therefore, let us consider what I think would be the most common use case for a controls page -- trying to find a control to do a particular thing because you don't know/forgot it. I don't have any sort of hard evidence that this is the most common use case for a controls page/listing, but I can't really think of any other use cases. For that particular use case, you are first searching for what you are trying to accomplish, and then how to accomplish it. When reading left-to-right, then, you would like the first thing in each row you read to be the what so you then can make a decision on whether or not to continue reading that row more quickly than if you had to first scan to the end of the row to determine the what and then look backwards on the same row for the how. So by having the Action column as the leftmost column, it requires less work to find information by what first and how second, and thus is faster. As for left-aligned vs right-aligned, I prefer right-aligned because it leads more into the table itself and is just more aesthetically pleasing (I could go into another not-researched usability talk of the benefits of right-aligned vs left-aligned for the first column based on personal experience/opinion, but this is already getting pretty lengthy). --Skizzerz 04:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Since most games have a tutorial or controls list available, I think control references are definitely to a) refresh peoples memories and b) to note controls (such as button combos) that may have been excluded from the in-game list/tutorial. As for left or right, we've always put our controls on the left. This is the natural way - most new people start control pages that way. It's because we think/say it in a syntax like "this button/combination does this". We don't think/say it like "this action requires this button/combination". I don't think we need to switch our standard. It is equally as efficient and logical. I wouldn't mind the change - if you guys want to do it and bot all of the pages into the switch that'd be fine. Note that at the end of this discussion we need to update StrategyWiki:Guide/Getting Started pages#Controls. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 19:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)