Display bug with multiple system requirement tables with tabs

[JeffRuLz0 0]

Hello, today I added the steam/gog system requirements to the The I of the Dragon page. I wanted to make a new section to separate the retail requirements from the digital ones. The Half-Life page was formatted this way so I imitated that.

Afterwards I noticed that the OS tabs were bugged on both pages. The Mac and Linux tabs for the steam version were positioned onto the table for the retail version. I'm sure this is because pages are expected to have only one system requirements table.

1) Is this a legitimate wiki bug?

2) If not, what is the proper way to insert multiple system requirement tables onto a page?

[Aemony 144]

This sort of setup is not supported by the wiki. It only supports one set of system requirements for each OS family. It was not designed to handle multiple separate editions in the way those pages use them. See the Editing Guide for the full guidelines.

So the fix, for now, is to remove the retail system requirements from the page. This also ties into how PCGW articles are meant to cover a fully up-to-date and modern version of the game -- we do not really concern ourselves with outdated/inaccessible versions in that vein.

[JeffRuLz0 0]

I see, I thought that would be the case.

I noticed the Half-Life 2 page has a note underneath the table listing the old requirements, would that be a suitable compromise?

54 minutes ago, Aemony said:

This also ties into how PCGW articles are meant to cover a fully up-to-date and modern version of the game -- we do not really concern ourselves with outdated/inaccessible versions in that vein.

That's unfortunate to read. I'm the kind of person who still collects physical copies of old PC games and getting them to work on modern computers was what drew me to the site in the first place. Many pages are filled with fixes labeled for retail copies of games and it doesn't seem right to strip away information because a game got re-released.

As the site moves forward I hope disc copies of games can continue to be represented in some way.

[Aemony 144]

On 3/30/2025 at 9:12 PM, JeffRuLz0 said:

That's unfortunate to read. I'm the kind of person who still collects physical copies of old PC games and getting them to work on modern computers was what drew me to the site in the first place. Many pages are filled with fixes labeled for retail copies of games and it doesn't seem right to strip away information because a game got re-released.

The problem is that it's a moving goal post, and it's impossible to track everything related to every version of the game. Retail/release version might be one thing, but then there's also patches being released that can change everything from graphical features, supported input devices, middleware used, and even stuff like the system requirements -- especially if the game has a dependency on a third-party component (e.g. the VC++ Redist libraries) that has their own set of dependencies.

For larger re-releases/remastered versions, we typically track them through their own dedicated page in an attempt to retain information pertaining to the "original release", but when it comes to releases that are effectively just the original game re-released on a digital platform with the same issues/bugs/features just with slightly changed system requirements (most often due to the aforementioned VC++ redist dependency upgrade), it doesn't make sense to have two separate pages where 99% of the contents are identical, with just a couple of lines being different. And now imagine that kind of tracking for every single update/change that a game undergoes...

As such, something have to give, and in an attempt to make it easier for everyone and retain consistency, PCGW decided to not bother tracking information related to outdated versions of the game. That sort of information, if we've ever tracked it, would remain available through the page history on the wiki, but it wouldn't confuse new editors or visitors, of which most are expected to approach PCGW from the perspective of the current up-to-date version of the game.

Half-Life in particular is a good example of this moving goal post, where the Steam client still to this day (as far as I am aware of) supports and allows redeeming original Half-Life retail keys. So all that stops an owner from a fully up-to-date version of the game is going through the CD key redemption page on Steam...

 

On 3/30/2025 at 9:12 PM, JeffRuLz0 said:

I noticed the Half-Life 2 page has a note underneath the table listing the old requirements, would that be a suitable compromise?

It's not supported by the Editing Guide at the moment and I'm not a part of the PCGW staff so the actual senior editors of the site would have to decide upon it. So while that compromise remains and can be used (and is vastly better than the broken alternative), do not be surprised if someone where to remove it from a page article.

[JeffRuLz0 0]

I agree that it doesn't make sense to have a page for every version of a game. It's generally difficult and unnecessary to roll back to a specific revision of a digital game.

However, that's not entirely relevant for physical games because the digital copy isn't a simple upgrade. There's a clearer distinction between a digital re-release and incremental patches. Half-Life may allow you to redeem a digital copy but most games do not. I don't believe purchasing the game again is a perfect solution.

It's a different distribution method, just like if a game had different versions on steam and GOG. That's generally how physical games are currently treated on the wiki and I think we agree that's fine. It was just inconvenient when it came to the system requirements.

 

I think I'm just overreacting. I get where you're coming from and I don't think there's a big push to purge physical games from the wiki. I'm satisfied with putting the old requirements as a note at the bottom. I didn't intend the topic to turn this way.