Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Inside (video game)

List-defined refs

Any objection to converting the added refs from in-line to list-defined? czar 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan but I wouldn't object to list defined. While discussing this, can we agree this article should be British English and use dmy dates (since Playdead is European)? --MASEM (t) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing about the game/product that constitutes strong national ties to a topic and thus no reason to change it. (And even with that aside, American English is just as prevalent in Denmark as British English if not more so.) czar 18:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, through with close relationship of Limbo, Inside, and Playdead, we should probably normalize these at least to the same variant of English and date format. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Several sources call Inside a "sequel"—should we not? Sequel can imply continuity and I think readers are reverting for that reason. That said, the sources call it a sequel at the very least as succeeding the first game. czar 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spiritual sequel for sure, but I don't think its a narrative sequel which is generally how the word, out of context, is implied. We should be careful with it if Playdead hasn't stated it as a narrative sequel. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2.5D or 3D

I'm pretty sure that Inside is not 2.5D, but 3D. The rendering, lighting, shadows, models; everything about the in-game environment is 3-dimensional. The only 2-dimensional aspect to the game (apart from the UI and titles) is avatar movement, but as far as I am aware, that does not reduce the rest to 2.5D. I'll leave it as it is for now, in case I'm wrong. Guardian of Lost Scrolls (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2.5D is specifically for games where the entire world may be rendered in 3D, but movement is restricted, more or less, to the 2D plane (ignoring how at times there are slight angled turned you take). It's a term related to the combination of gameplay and presentation aspects. You're absolutely correct that the game is rendered fully in 3D, it's just that 2.5D is the proper term to describe the game as a whole. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add, see the section 2.5D#2.5D platform games, which is what is meant here. I think the link in the article presently does not go to that. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2.5D is basically just a way of saying a polygonal game where the movement is restricted to two dimensions. Inside is a textbook example. Drsmoo (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the info. I stand corrected. Guardian of Lost Scrolls (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of creature and upcoming presentation

Playdead's going to be giving a GDC talk this year (In late-Feb/March) on the ending of Inside, specifically noting that in the abstract they call out the name of the creature at the end as the Huddle.[1]. More will be give at this talk about how they came up with it and how they rendered/controlled it in the game. We should be able to add more from that once the talk has been given (likely picked up by one of the major gaming sites, but at worst as a GDC vault presentation). --MASEM (t) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate 'Theories' section

The Theories section of the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, it contains fan speculation that is more appropriate for the fan wiki and the

tag should be used. I originally removed this section but it was reverted on the grounds that it has a reference and so is appropriate; I dispute this claim as the issue is not with the reference cited but the content itself. See the Article content section here.

Seb0910 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced fan theories absolutely should not be included, as that violates WP:OR. But if the theory comes from a reliable source, it serves properly as a secondary source and should be incorporated, keeping in mind UNDYE as to not give any theory more weight than others, but inclusion is still correct. --MASEM (t) 11:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or guidelines states that fan theories are suitable content? Arguably a fan theory is not suitable according to the guidelines for video game articles that information not pertinent to someone playing the game should be omitted, as well as the guidelines stating the plot section to be an overview or summary, as well as the suggestion that more detailed and nuanced content be instead transferred to a fan wiki. Seb0910 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theories that originate from an RS, or are fan theories but discussed by an RS are acceptable. It us the same concept as we use to select reviews to use...fan reviews aren't acceptable, but RS ones are. This is what WP:NOR tells us. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the subject of my dispute. It is not the validity of the source, but rather the content itself. A review is an essential part of the article content as it relates to the game's reception, as stated in the link I provided above. Published or not a fan plot theory is not in the vein of an encyclopedic article on a video game, it goes beyond an overview of the plot and into details that are more appropriate for a fan wiki. Seb0910 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other aspect to consider is that these theories are similar to literary themes (which most video games don't get, but can happen). Analysis of themes, even if that includes plot interpretation, is acceptable content. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that. Per the Article Guidelines link I provided above under the Inappropriate Content header (emphasis mine):

"Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception. Based on: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Plot summaries, and Wikipedia's policy on undue weight"

I should also mention nowhere in the guidelines is it suggested that theories be formed, in fact speculation is also not appropriate even if from reliable sources:

"Rumors and speculation: Speculation about future games, rumors about content within a game, or changes in video game developers and publishers should not be included, even if these rumors emerge or are re-reported from reliable sources. Discussion of well-reported, industry-wide rumors from an historical standpoint, well after the time they had or should have happened, may be appropriate to help provide context for a topic. Based on: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a repository of original research or original thought"

With these guidelines in mind, I again submit that the Theories section is not appropriate for Wikipedia, it is more appropriate for a fan wiki and should be moved there.Seb0910 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors or speculation doesn't apply here, since that is about future events, nor published works. On the first pojnt, key is out UNDUE policy. If noreliable sources discuss it, yes it is inappropriate. But if there is significant discussion about plot in RSes, then yes it is acceptable to include under UNDUE without violating plot. Eg, we are able to expand greatly on the plot for Bioshock, Portal, and Spec Ops because of attention given to that from secondary sources. What we don't want is excession plot dissection using only the primary source, and definitely not interpretation of the primage source by editors or non RS works. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right in the quoted text it says "rumors about content within a game... should not be included". Furthermore, expansion on existing plot is an excellent addition, however the games you list all have expanded sections like "Setting", "Plot", "Characters", and "Endings"; none of these are speculation and are welcome additions. The section I am disputing is based on speculation and is therefore inappropriate. Seb0910 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis and interpretation is not the same as rumor or speculation, as we have written by intent in the VG guidelines.--MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that as well. What precedent is there for including plot theories, published or otherwise, in a video game article? Several articles about games with a heavy focus on plot and themes do not have a Theories sections. A very clear example is Limbo, a game that is very similar to Inside in that it has no dialogue and the plot section is essentially an observation. Limbo does not have this type of section, even though there are many published sources that list theories of the game's plot. Another example is Journey. Seb0910 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo does have it: see under Reception#Plot. For Journey, I've never seen any reliable source necessarily attempt to dissect its plot. BioShock Infinite has a whole section on themes. A vast majority of video games do not yet anything type of analysis at this level, I fully agree, but there are a handful that do, and just like great works of literature (such as The Divine Comedy or Romeo and Juliet, this is similar analysis and is a necessary part of understanding the work's role in the larger picture of video games outside of the video gamer's perspective. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here in response to a request at WP:3O, though I saw this referenced in general terms elsewhere and replied there. In the latter case I was concerned that the material might be original research. However, in this case the material appears to be coming from a reliable source, in which case I am inclined to think it is reasonable to include.

Other editors are welcome to disagree and continue the discussion here or pursue other forms of dispute resolution if they wish to do so. Happy holidays to all! DonIago (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section could simply be renamed "Interpretations", and some of the less substantiated claims can be cut out. --174.127.243.141 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the Theories header in the Plot section

By breadth of support, one editor supports the inclusion without qualification, one opposes the inclusion, and three support inclusion contingent on its sourcing to WP:RS. By value of argumentation, there is no clear evidence that the policy-based arguments of one perspective outweigh those of the others. Ultimately, it seems there is a consensus to include the theories section in this article contingent on its sourcing to multiple RS which SMcCandlish seems to have encapsulated the view of the community by describing it as "notable reviewers (or reviewers for notable publications)". It was further the consensus that the form in which the theories section was presented at the time the RfC was opened may not have met this standard. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the theories section be included in the article? Seb0910 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As you said above, there is good precedent for reliably sourced discussion of themes, plot points, etc. in creative works. Ylee (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is appropriate to include interpretations, theories, etc. that are coming from reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this totally depends on whether those "theories" have coverage in reliable sources and whether they're reported as a general truth or as the opinion of the author I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 01:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless additional sources are found. The section is undue and potentially fringe speculative info from a single source. If multiple sources are found then the section can probably be re-added, as that would establish the significance of the section and provide multiple perspectives. Right now all we have is one wild theory, effectively by one "fan", who happens to write for what looks like(?) a rather low-end source. We shouldn't be creating undue weight advancing that theory. The game appears to have attracted significant interest, so we may just need a good internet searching to better support the section. Alsee (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in this form. It's poorly sourced, and the material selected for inclusion is not really encyclopedic. I concede that such a section could be included, but I don't think it would look much like that. I think it would require that the opinion be sourced to notable reviewers (or reviewers for notable publications at least). E.g., "GameSpot reviewer Jo Bloggs has speculated that [whatever][Bloggs's article], an idea that has gained traction among many fans.[source that proves that]. However, according to ...", and so on. The claims made should be central to the plot, and not trivial or "fanwanky".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's completely reasonable, and as noted with the additional sources, proper attribution can be done. Do note that these theories about about the entire point of the game (which includes the secret ending) so it is all central to the plot. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inside (video 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chapman

Joshua Chapman’s reception should be included on this page, as he is a world-class programmer, formerly of EA Sports and the Mortal Kombat series. His comments on gaming are impeccable, except for his highly controversial views of Inside. Jpjupp (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ARG, the Printer Secret and Terminal41

In the "education room" there is a printer that you pass by to get to the place where you can stand by the window outside the Huddle Chamber. This printer had hidden coded messages that led to an ARG that took three years to solve, only having been [seemingly?] completed within the last several months. This led to the release of a new piece of concept art of Playdead's upcoming third game or a possible depiction of a moment in the game's backstory. Something about this should be added to the Wikipedia page given the detail put into the ARG itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoofyG (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title seems to be all-caps, not just stylized as that

This game's proper title seems to be all-caps. Look at Steam, iTunes, the website -- the stuff written by the devs is all in all-caps, not just in logos. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Name of the article

I don't know if anyone realized, but there is a game of the same name that was released in the early 1990s: https://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-8-bit/inside

Shouldn't we rename the article to Inside (2016 video game)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeephare (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have an article for that game, there's no need to disambiguate. And even if we did, we'd then have to consider if there is any equivalent weight, and I'd would argue this (2016) game has far more weight to use the (video game) term over a relatively obscure 1990 computer game. --Masem (t) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible editing contention in the infobox?

The last few months, I removed the executive producers from the infobox to replace them with the individual specifically credited as "producer," per guidelines. This edit was reverted a couple times, with the second having an unsourced claim that Patti, an executive producer, is publically established as the real producer of the game. I didn't find to back it up and I'm confused that it happened twice. Am I missing something? If the argument is that he did interviews, then that doesn't really prove anything, unless he said the credits were not accurate. Rakewater (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bestseller or commercial success?

Is Inside supposed to be bestselling and/or commercially successful video game or neither? Why? Thomas Wiencek (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inside_(video_game)