Talk:Antichamber

Category

Is Category:Perspective games appropriate for this article? --Mika1h (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't played it yet, but isn't it all simply in first-person view? That category isn't very clearly defined, but isn't it just for games where the perspective forms a game mechanic? Jujutacular (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, but "Simply" is selling it short. The idea of perspective is pretty central to the core gameplay. This is "original research" though, if one may call "a few hours of playing indie video games" actual "research", so I won't make any edits.--70.64.171.159 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A few sources use "perspective" (as in "changes in perspective") as an element of the gameplay, and thus the categorization there is appropriate. It's not like the 2D/3D shift games, but it does fit the broad concept. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "perspective" fits, but I have a quarrel with "puzzle." Although the "puzzle" genre fits, it is not the main genre of Antichamber. It is clearly listed as a "psychological exploration game" in it's Steam description (as well as on the Antichamber Wikia). I have changed it for now, although "puzzle" should be listed somewhere as well, possibly as a sub-genre. Cali292292 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Our topics of genre are the larger classifications - puzzle game fits since this is similar to Portal and those ilk, but there's no "psychological exploration" genre. It is a thematic genre and I know that Bruce calls out to that in interviews, so I agree that aspect needs to be included in the lead. It's not not a game genre. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the Steam page, the genre is "Adventure, Indie" so "Puzzle" really shouldn't be listed as a main genre. I realize that most people are going to call it a puzzle game because of the extent of how many puzzles are in it, although Bruce has not called it a puzzle game in any interview I've seen, or listed it as a puzzle game on any of the places that he's talked about it. Cali292292 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Portal is also labeled only as "action, adventure" but this because Steam doesn't have a "puzzle" category. Puzzle game is used by a variety of sources, though (and particularly in when AC is compared to Portal). I do believe both need to be mentioned, of course. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Date

From the development section: "Antichamber started as Hazard: The Journey of Life in 2009" -- where does this date come from? I don't see it in the next listed source. One of the "Development rooms" from the game show some years: "2006-2013" on the wall. Any third party source for this? Jujutacular (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From this source: "He began adding "philosophical" themes "about choices and metaphor" in 2009, at which point the "Journey of Life" subtitle came in." The sentence might need a little rewording with that. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've reworded it and added some info. I also found another Joystiq article that notes that the project began in 2006. Jujutacular (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

antichamber

I think that the whole point of this game is to try to have very simple levels, but the graphics trick you to not know what is going on, and to make things harder than they seem. the fact that it makes it seem harder creates an expectation that everything in the game will be hard, and that the simplest of answers seem like a huge challenge. what i'm trying to say is that the graphics corrupts the fact that its simple, and makes all the doors and answers seem very difficult. the whole purpose of the fact it makes your head spin round is to make you so dizzy you cant see the answer clearly. if you could however, somehow try to not notice the graphics and remind yourself that the level are easier than they seem it would be possible to breeze through the game.- the anonymous and young video game philosopher.

Ending spoiler

I see that a spoiler to the ending of the game was in this article for quite some time, and the last time it was removed it was put back with the reason "Wikipedia does not hide spoilers." Whilst that may be true, I disagree that a story spoiler should go under the "Gameplay" header if it is to be re-added, as (1) that doesn't make sense, and (2) users may unintentionally spoil themselves, when all they wanted to know was what the gameplay mechanics were like (i.e. what is already in that heading, explaining guns, cubes, rooms... NOT explaining how to solve puzzles or the consequences of solving puzzles.) Daveoh (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Our spoiler policy doesn't limit spoilers to specific sections; we simply don't write with this concern at hand. This should be common knowledge when using WP that we will reveal all details about a work, and while you may get burned once on that, any subsequent times are your own fault. Yes, in most game articles, there is a separate plot from the gameplay, but as there's almost no plot whatsoever, there's no reason to split it off. Thus to discuss the ending which is completely within policy, and the fact that the gameplay mechanics do change somewhat at the end, this is the only place to discuss it. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Masem -- there's very little plot to speak of, so it wouldn't make sense to split off anything to a different section. Anyone beginning to read the gameplay section would see that the text is going into depth about the game mechanics and stop reading if they don't want to spoil it. This is a puzzle game after all. I'll also note that the 'spoiler' paragraph you removed begins with "Upon completing a core set of puzzles... " -- anyone that continues reading only has themselves to blame. Jujutacular (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antichamber. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405052605/http://uk.gamespot.com/antichamber/reviews/antichamber-review-6403182/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/antichamber/reviews/antichamber-review-6403182/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607044549/http://www.indiepubgames.com/news/3rd-developer-competition-winner-announced to http://www.indiepubgames.com/news/3rd-developer-competition-winner-announced
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529055229/http://www.indiegamechallenge.com/2011-finalists/hazard/ to http://www.indiegamechallenge.com/2011-finalists/hazard/

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) 08:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)