Talk:Video games

...What about D&D Online? --64.206.238.155 14:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Grimrock? --77.101.97.138 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is are stance on Space Hulk?--Special:dragonkingofthestars 02:05, 05 September 2013 (UTC)

FTL:faster than light? Gutsm3k (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Tabletop Simulator seems to be perfect for this entire wiki. --71.62.236.219 16:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting it out there ( I have also gone ahead and put it on grimdark page) Spec Ops:The Line If you want to purge any mention of this then please do.

Putting this one out there, though this isn't a much updated page: Deep Rock Galactic, which is essentially Squats v Tyranids. And pretty fun. LTenhet 2019

Command and Conquer?

Is there a call to create an article for the game Command and Conquer on here? --Alorend (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Or Heroes of Might and Magic for that matter? --Alorend (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevance and Deletion

While there is vidya that is relevant to /tg/, nearly all of the tiles listed here have articles of this own. As such, I don't see the use of this page.--The Forgefather (talk)

Perhaps we should rename/repurpose the article "Commander Keen Rule?" Its a part of board culture that newfags should be able to look up. 74.130.48.197 07:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(MOVED THE ABOVE TO THE TALK PAGE. --Thannak (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

Is it really so horrible having a page whose purpose it is to tell you about related material? Also look at all of the /tg/ recommended games, and then tell me that nearly all the titles listed have articles of their own.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that this page is terrible. There should still be a page explaining why some videogames are listed on 1d4chan. -- Triacom (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note a recent issue here inasmuch as many of the games listed have been added here for no other reason than that the editor personally liked them. It's like a bizarro version of the old "List of Mary Sues" article inasmuch as it's nothing more than a collection of shit someone decided that they like that has nothing to do with /tg/ itself. In any event, the Commander Keen Rule is itself utterly outdated and in desperate need of revision. Personally, I think just redirecting the page to the Video Games category would be the best possible approach in this situation. --Newerfag (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I don't think anyone would have a problem if the links/game mentions only included the /tg/ approved ones, however since /tg/ does occasionally discuss video games (regardless of mods pissing on the fun) and there are several videogames that are either based on or directly reference the gampeplay systems on tabletop games (not to mention those that directly try to recreate it) that I fail to see why a video game page isn't necessary. Also you aren't supposed to put this type of information on a category page, and that wouldn't link to any games besides the ones that already have pages on this wiki, not to mention people seem to have a real stick up their ass now about how much content a page is "supposed" to have, so if you included a bare bones page because it's /tg/ approved and/or one that's directly based on a tabletop game some idiot would eventually flag it for deletion. Also this isn't really the same case as the "list of Mary Sues" because that list, firstly didn't need to exist as it was entirely biased (calling it /tg/'s list of Mary Sues would have been better) and secondly it had a main page that it should have been on in the first place. If you delete this where are we going to put the /tg/ approved games or games based on tabletop games sections? Also how exactly is the commander keen bit outdated? Because it's old? Last time I checked age was not reason in and of itself to change the way something works. -- Triacom (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that the games it uses as examples are ones that many people may have never even heard of even on /tg/ itself to my knowledge (e.g. Albion), or that the games it cites as being indirectly related to /tg/ are ones you have to really dig deep to find exactly how they're related in that respect. Admittedly, that's more nitpicking on my part than anything else apart from a few whose mention simply makes no sense to me (e.g. Conker's Bad Fur Day). While I have a few other petty gripes here and there about it, they aren't worth discussing. --Newerfag (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've played Albion, and while I'd agree in that it's unknown to most people, I think you'd at least find a few people there who've played/heard of it. I don't get where you think it's being used as an example though, it's not on the main page or in any of the images, and it shouldn't be, it's not really /tg/ related and I'm sure that nobody there has discussed it. As I said before, if you want to shorten the list to the /tg/ relevant ones (or to the ones that are on the /tg/ approved images) I doubt anybody would complain, my main point is that we do need at least some sort of video game page rather than just the category page, even if it's a short one. If you don't like the links taking up so much space, we can make a collapsible section where we put the ones who don't have pages along with a short blurb about what they are, and then have a link to the category section, which would remove the need for having the regular links in this page so we can delete them. -- Triacom (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I still find it ludicrous that people spend their time and effort fretting over what pages should be shorter or should not exist when there's so many pages that should exist and don't, are mere stubs, or have grammar and punctuation befitting a /v/ Undertale discussion. --Thannak (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What can I say? It's easier to trim off the proverbial fat than it is to expand or rewrite pages that need it. I'd do it myself, but a lack of experience in /tg/ matters and my knowledge of only a small handful of settings means that I can't really do much that other people would be able to do much more effectively. --Newerfag (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I still find it ludicrous that people spend their time and effort fretting over board games when there are starving children in Africa.--The Forgefather

What about RuneScape?

Why is there no mention of RuneScape? RuneScape is an MMORPG that is older than WoW and still gets regular updates and has a dedicated fan base. And the free version of the game is the worlds largest free mmorpg. Jagex, the company that makes RuneScape has made several bad decisions that have alienated a lot of fans, but they do listen to criticisms unlike some companies and can be real bros sometimes. Recently I heard that they delayed the shutdown of the original version of the game just so that one player could finish the last quest. The game is mostly a standard medieval fantasy with a tone that can vary from very silly to very dark. My personal favorite quest storyline in the game is the Myreque storyline, where the player joins a group of rebels fighting a hopeless war against the vampyres (always spelled with a y) ruling over the nation of Morytania who raise humans like cattle. There is also a great pirate storyline inspired by the Monkey Island games combined with Lovecraft, and a storyline about an evil king and his elven allies creating a plague hoax in order to covertly enslave and sacrifice the population of his kingdom, and many more great stories. The game has a lot of outdated content in it that Jagex has been slow to fix and it probably is not the game for you if you hate slow level grinding, but it is worth a try. Currently there are two versions of the game, RuneScape 3 and Old School RuneScape, which was created from a back up of the game from 2007 for players who didnt like the changes to the games combat system and graphics. Other versions of the game which have been discontinued include RuneScape Classic, which was the original version of the game, DarkScape, where players were allowed to kill each other anywhere in the game, and Dimension of the Damned, where players had to survive in a world overun with zombies.

>search RuneScape on a whim

>get only one hit from the D&D Online page

>"It is currently the third most played MMORPG in the US, behind World of Warcraft and (sadly) RuneScape."

That's far from conclusive evidence of anything, but the idea of "no one on /the/ actually likes it" might be a place to start. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:B47A:AFA5:2B86:9048 11:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls

It seems that parts about this series were written by some oldfags with “better old days” case. Really, changes from game to game are not that significant and that part about Skyrim seems like bullshit: “no choice to complete quests how you want” when you didn’t have much of a choice in any other parts, “ horrible dialogues” when you have Daggerfall and Morrowind as approved, and “uninspired combat” when you have Arena and Daggerfall on the list. I didn’t edit them because even if it’s sounds like bullshit, it’s site of a community, so I ask neckbeards to either approve younger games(Oblivion and Skyrim) or accept that elder scrolls games are not qualify as rpg.

Agreed. The TES edition wars are retarded. I would argue Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim all deserve to be recommended. Maybe the older games more so but only because they're not as popular. But yeah, there are some dumb neck beards with nostalgia so tight for early TES games they shit on newer TES games for no reason than they're newer. Not only that, but /v/ contrarians will shit on them for no reason other than them being popular and well liked. See The Elder Scrolls Problem on Youtube, this explains it better than I can.

ARK

Yo, we have the same amount if not more written about other games. Let ARK have its paragraphs. Death Korps of Krieg Soldier (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Games that can be used to troll /tg/, TES and Fallout

Well?

As somebody who's just watched this dumb editwar, the shorter paragraph summarized everything much better than the second breakdown which wasn't needed. The idea is you can invoke anything modern Bethesda does to troll them, which is true, while the longer breakdown seems to think Bethesda will put out an open world RPG that cannot be used to troll them, and there's no evidence of that. Even posting new trailers piss them off, and I fail to see why each new game needs its own bullet point when the shorter paragraph summed up the issue perfectly. -- Triacom (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Right I think we need some clarity here, because you kind of described both and I'm not sure which one you actually mean. So let's label them:

Edit A:

• Skyrim, a fun popular well liked meme game that /v/ contrarians and neckbeards with nostalgia goggles will pretend is shit. Same goes for Oblivion
• Fallout 3 and 4 have similar skub issues. The fact that Bethesda took over the series after 2 ensures the new Fallouts will be completely different from the beloved originals, thus fanning the skub fire more so.
  • Fallout New Vegas avoids this skub because it was developed by Obsidian, which had employees who worked on the first two games.

Edit B:

• Any open world RPG by Bethesda released after Morrowind is a perfect bait material that everyone is going to flock toward, be it Oblivion, Skyrim or Fallout 3 and 4. However, the further you go, the more obvious it will be as trolling, given decreasing quality of Bethesda's games. For this reason, using Fallout 76 is too blatant and won't work out.

So I assume Edit B is "the longer breakdown seems to think Bethesda will put out an open world RPG that cannot be used to troll them, and there's no evidence of that." and I agree. Edit A is superior in that regard. But Edit A is the one that "I fail to see why each new game needs its own bullet point when the shorter paragraph summed up the issue perfectly."

You have it backwards, edit B is clearly shorter, that's what I was referring to. It encompasses both games that are currently out and future products without going into unnecessary detail. -- Triacom (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. They're about the same length and A doesn't "seems to think Bethesda will put out an open world RPG that cannot be used to troll them, and there's no evidence of that." but B clearly does. In fact, the TES part of A is shorter and sums it u better. The Fallout part of A goes into extra detail, but to be honest. New Vegas isn't the skub 4 & 3 are.

They're about the same length? No, one clearly has more words than the other and takes up more space. A doesn't "seems to think Bethesda will put out an open world RPG that cannot be used to troll them, and there's no evidence of that. Triple negative aside (that statement says you think there's no evidence Bethesda will release a game that can be used to troll them), modern Bethesda itself can be used to troll them, along with any footage they release of new content and there's no reason to believe that this will change any time soon. The bit about TES in A is irrelevant because that section is about games that can be used to troll them, not how good/bad they are on their own merits, so any mention of the game's quality is unnecessary. Same goes for Fallout, and since New Vegas isn't a Bethesda game it's pointless to mention it in a section about Bethesda games. -- Triacom (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

My opinion Edit B is redundant, given that we already have "Unlike the previous Bethesda RPGs Fallout 76 is actually bad. So if you want to troll people you'll have to pretend to like it. Although, it's so objectively terrible your bait will most likely seem too obvious." later under that same subject. Edit A is better, but the bullet points are unnecessary. So I say, A but fix the bullets? Maybe have TES and Fallout under one bullet each?

Edit B already covers that when it talks about the decrease in quality in current Bethesda games. It also covers future products when Edit A would need even more bullet points. Also what you're proposing is what edit B already does. -- Triacom (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What are talking about, they both already cover that? Also, why would it need to cover future products?

Because they don't like Bethesda or anything Bethesda is making, regardless of the quality of the product. That's the point. -- Triacom (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think "going into future products" is unnecessary. I also think setting FO 3 and 4 apart from New Vegas isn't unnecessary.

New Vegas isn't a Bethesda game, putting it in the section about Bethesda games is just wrong, especially when it's only included to say it shouldn't be included. As for future products, I'd agree with you if they were not able to be used to troll, and we've yet to see any evidence of that. -- Triacom (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I cut down the Fallout bit, removed the reference to New Vegas and added a reference to future games.

Looks good to me. -- Triacom (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On second thought I'm changing my opinion to "good enough". I don't get why you feel the need to get all defensive about Skyrim, especially since the game's quality is beside the point, but whatever. -- Triacom (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm being defensive of Skyrim. I just thought it would be funny if it was "brutally honest" and from the prospective a normie who likes it, as apposed to a neckbeard /v/irgin who hates it (the people who are being trolled). I mean, most people tend to really like the game, /v/ (and by extension /tg/) just has an overly vocal minority that dislikes it. But, I suppose I can clean up the language a little to make it more neutral on the game's quality.

"I just thought it would be funny if it was "brutally honest" and from the prospective a normie who likes it-" That's why you come off as defending it, as if you're a "normie" who liked it and is upset other people didn't. If it was meant to be a joke then it was buried so deeply I doubt anyone noticed. -- Triacom (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this, you dumb fucks: the fact you are arguing about it is the best testimony how all those games are great for trolling people and it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER what's your personal opinion about each of them. The point is they make great bait material and that's it. So keep it simple, sillies

I've already made that point, if you had the ability to read what was written instead of bitching about it you'd see that's what I've been saying. -- Triacom (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

We are at the point where the stupid shit reverting to the messed up version just admitted he's doing it for nothing else than trolling. Ban when?

When enough people ask for it on Root or AssistantWikifag's user talk pages. -- Triacom (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I could literally say the same thing about you Anon. Consider this, I was willing to have a civil discussion with Triacom and change my edit based off of his criticisms. You however, seem to believe you can insult me into compliance. How is that working for you? --BobbyBobberson (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No joke, I seriously thought the anon was engaging in self-deprecating humour, because they said earlier they wanted to keep the page simple yet they constantly revert it to a more complicated version. -- Triacom (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I don't think this Anon has much of a sense of humor at all. At first I thought he might be a troll (and he might be), but now I'm pretty sure he's just really butt hurt. Either way, he's being unreasonable. --BobbyBobberson (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)