Key points regulation

[Andytizer 269]

It would be nice to have a discussion about the Key points section as it is getting very bloated and unfocused. Perhaps we can institute some ideas and rules for what goes where.

 

Key points

I created this because I wanted a very simple way of telling a person who doesn't know anything about the game, the 2 or 3 very most important things. However, it has become a 'catch-all' place to dump all information, e.g. has 7.1 sound, has modding capabilities, etc. which I don't think are very 'key'.

 

Key points are more like:

- has unfixed killer bug, e.g. save game corruption

- no FOV/widescreen resolution/etc

 

They could also include 'essential' things that 99% of people would recommend - i.e. your enjoyment of the game would be severely hampered without considering these first:

- Dark Souls' DSFix

- Fallout's FIXT

- Deus Ex New Vision omd

 

Things like console commands, other mods - we could place these in a Other information header which could sit above the Issues fixed/unresolved section.

 

My suggestion for rules for Key points:

- Include information on crippling bugs and missing features

- Include the most important setting or mod - which 99% of people would consider essential

- Limit to a total of 4 key points (any more, and it can hardly be considered 'key'

[Andytizer 269]

FYI Soeb is working on a new Audio settings header too, so that kind of information can go there.

[Jeth Calark 12]

I'd like to add that another good key point is where newer/HD versions of games exist. Age of Empires II is a nice example; a good key point on its page states that a Steam version with many essential tweaks, fixes, and modern upgrades exists. Thus, most people would be more interested in that instead of the classic one.

[Nicereddy 109]

Shouldn't HD remakes be separate from the key points? I usually put them above the key points/general information with italics. "For the 2012 HD remake see *game name*".

[Newmansan 30]

I prefer Nicereddy's method personally.

[Pridit 39]

It's a bit of a confusing subject matter, because if we state something then we need to state it on any other game that the same key point applies to. I agree with this to an extent, but it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what needs to be stated and what qualifies as a key point. Once we figure out what exactly qualifies as a key point then we can start applying them but right now it's a bit of a jumbled mess. But yes I agree with what you have listed it just needs to be set in stone a bit more.

 

I also agree with Nicereddy, a remake really doesn't fit within key points as it isn't actually relevant to the game itself.

[Andytizer 269]

It's a bit of a confusing subject matter, because if we state something then we need to state it on any other game that the same key point applies to. I agree with this to an extent, but it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what needs to be stated and what qualifies as a key point. Once we figure out what exactly qualifies as a key point then we can start applying them but right now it's a bit of a jumbled mess. But yes I agree with what you have listed it just needs to be set in stone a bit more.

 

I also agree with Nicereddy, a remake really doesn't fit within key points as it isn't actually relevant to the game itself.

 

I'd agree that it looks better (more like disambiguation) to have at the top as it is done here: http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Serious_Sa ... _Encounter

 

Also I like Pridit's change on the EVE article's Key points to show multiplayer community activity, as this has a big effect on whether a game is worth picking up or not.

[Pridit 39]

Also I like Pridit's change on the EVE article's Key points to show multiplayer community activity, as this has a big effect on whether a game is worth picking up or not.

I didn't actually add that, Nicereddy did. But I agree it's definitely worth including community activity if it's a subscription based or heavily focused multiplayer title.

[Nicereddy 109]

The 4 key point limit might be good at streamlining them, but even some featured articles break it - for example the currently featured Metro: Last Light article has got 5 points. I would argue whether the 4th one is actually something to be included (since it might be a matter of personal taste to some), but it is nevertheless the case.

 

I would like it if we could decide upon a general order. Maybe general, positive, negative?

 

Personally, I feel that key points should never include any info on settings. That's what the video/input tables are supposed to do. Game-breaking bugs, intrusive DRM and very important fixes are in my opinion the important bit.

 

I definitely agree that it should be ordered "general, positive, negative".

 

I know a few pages have "OS X and Linux support is planned for the future". Do you think this is a good thing to put in the key points?

[Hungry eyes 6]

I'd question as to whether FOV settings constitute "key". For the average player surely they are a nicety rather than a key feature?

 

But yeah I agree it has become a little bloated.

[Newmansan 30]

I think that noting other OS's is a good key point if something leads us to believe it breaks convention. I.E. Halo 1 is compatible with all windows XP and later, but Halo 2 is Vista and later.

 

FOV should only be included when it or it's lack was a big deal to the community. I.E. It should be noted for Metro: Last Light, but not for Saints Row 3.

 

If we note everything that could potentially be useful to someone, we'll have 5 million key points. We should only note things that either break tradition or are considered a welcome addition, at least with these two things.

[Garrett 212]

System requirements should only be key points if they are currently relevant. Halo 2's Vista requirement is now standard and expected whereas Crysis 3's DirectX 11 card requirement is still unusual; Crysis 3 would then lose this key point once that requirement becomes the new standard.

 

Details of future ports for Linux etc. shouldn't be key points. The wiki's scope is dealing with what exists. If it's confirmed it goes in the infobox.

 

EDIT: reworded the second part for clarity. :)

[Hungry eyes 6]

System requirements should only be key points if they are currently relevant. Halo 2's Vista requirement is now standard and expected whereas Crysis 3's DirectX 11 card requirement is still unusual; Crysis 3 would then lose this key point once that requirement becomes the new standard.

 

Port details shouldn't be key points. The wiki's scope is dealing with what exists. If it's confirmed it goes in the infobox.

 

Agree with the first bit - stuff like Halo 2 being compatible with Vista onwards is old news and so few people use XP for gaming these days its not all that relevant.

 

Not sure what you mean by port details? If something is pretty godawful port I think that definitely warrants a key points entry, if only to inform people of what they are getting themselves in to. We can always link it to the port report for that game (if it exists).

[Garrett 212]

I was referring to the mention of planned Linux ports etc., not the quality of the game itself (I've reworded that part to be clearer).

 

When a game's quality is a key point the point should briefly describe the problems and have one or more references to a review or Port Report or whatever to explain in more detail.

 

Some pages list Wine compatibility as a key point but this should be avoided because Wine compatibility changes based on various variables; possible implementations are currently being discussed in a different topic, WINEHQ Information on Pages.

[Pridit 39]

[Automated] This discussion has concluded and a verdict has been reached. If this is not the case and there are still matters left undiscussed please contact a member of staff to get the topic reinstated.