Talk:Bit Boy!! Arcade

Links to questionable review sites

As of right now, the article claims "mostly received positive reviews" based on review sites "3DSPedia, Family Friendly Gaming, Nintendo Charged, Nintendo Enthusiast, Nintendo Life, JGGH Games". With the exception of Nintendo Life, I've never heard of any of those sites. It's telling that none of these sites have a wikipedia article, rendering them and this result questionable at best.

Specifically, jgghgames.com and familyfriendlygaming.com often are much more positive than what the industry at large (e.g. those linked by metacritic) thinks of certain games, especially indy games. I have to suspect that some of these sites can be bribed into giving higher grades.

If nobody objects, I suggest we create a new rule that we only feature reviews from sites which have attained a level of minimum noteworthiness, and that minimum level would be to have a wikipedia article about that review site. If somebody wants to create those articles, that's fine. I further suggest that we remove reviews that do not have a wikipedia article about themselves in 30 days. Srezz (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your contribution.

I have to confess, that I never questioned the popularity and neutrality of the gaming sites, listed in the Review section of the article. But you made some good points.

Maybe we should get rid of "3DSPedia, Family Friendly Gaming, Nintendo Charged, Nintendo Enthusiast, and JGGH Games". But I'm not quiet sure, what to do with Nintendo Life. It doesn 't seem to be an important site like IGN or Gamespot nor has it a wikipedia article. But so far it's the only negative review (considering the list on http://www.gamefaqs.com/3ds/660758-bit-boy-arcade/critic).

Bribing is in general a problem in the gaming business. Like doping in sports. Everybody knows but no one cares. I wouldn't assume that only unkown sites can be bribed.

New rules in gernal should be discused at the WikiProject Video games site but in the case of Bit Boy!! Arcade your idea sounds reasonable.

In general I don't like the idea that wikipedia relates on other websites, such as metacritics. As for I can't see what their points are to take scores from a website or not. Their list http://www.metacritic.com/faq#item19 (click on expand) looks arbitrarily to me. Toppas Balance (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. My beef is the conclusion "mostly received positive reviews". I don't think this conclusion can be made if only small and questionable review websites have reviewed a game. Regarding relevancy: well, this is not correlated with "being open". Example: the coke formula is a secret, and yet the product is high regarded. Bribes: if there would be a wikipedia article for all linked review websites, that article could also mention questionable behaviour of the sites, so that a reader himself can decide whether to trust a site or not. So my suggestion would solve that. Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, I'll think about it. Srezz (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been recent changes to the page, hyping the game up the wazoo: [1]. Both of the IP adresses used (212.232.28.34 and 84.114.100.177) are from Austria, the same country where the game comes from. My sensor of shameless self promotion is triggered. I say we stop this at once. Srezz (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And how do we do that? What do you suggest? As far as I can see the majority of reviews are indeed positive. Maybe we should wait some days, if IGN/Gamespot or other big sites post a review of their own? Also we should provide more informations about the game, so it isn't only a mere collection of reviews. So it would be more use to wikipedia. Toppas Balance (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm new here. Maybe you know what to do? Srezz (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the sites that are not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS czar ♔ 20:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was the Pure Nintendo link removed? It's still mentioned in the body of the article. I agree some of the prior sites listed weren't the best, but Pure Nintendo is arguably even more reliable than the remaining sources. It's been around for years, and is the only source to have an actual physical magazine published bi-monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.68.242 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Valid Argumentation, point taken. Added the Pure Nintendo Magazine. It has a wiki pedia article, so even Srezz plead for a level of minimum noteworthiness should be fullfilled. Toppas Balance (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_105#Notability_criteria_for_inclusion_of_videogame_review_websites.3F. There is a list of acceptable videogame review sites at WP:VG/RS, and pure nintendo is not on that list. You may suggest that Pure Nintendo should be added to that list. I doubt that other moderators of that list will agree with you, though, since Pure Nintendo has a questionable review track record imho. But if you can add pure nintendo to that list, you're welcome to add its reviews here as well. Until then, I'm removing them in this article. Srezz (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your source and personal opinions are insufficient per Wikipedia standards, and reflective of bias. I've restored the prior version which also keeps the article neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.68.242 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no bias. If you believe Pure Nintendo should be included, please go first to WP:VG/RS and convince the moderators there that it is indeed a balanced source. Just because a source has a wikipedia entry doesn't make it a valid or balanced source. I'm reverting your edit again. Srezz (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

This game sucks. Cyber289 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocks

How many blocks are in this game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.220.51 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)