Talk:The Last Guardian

Referring to the creature

Masem, you were right about the staff not using the "dog-cat-eagle" name combination, but they do mention "man-eating eagle", "dog", and "cat" separately. However, whatever the developer calls the creature in his interview translated from Japanese, perhaps to avoid confusion among readers, it is best not to refer to it as an "eagle" ? Because clearly it is not an eagle... Also, don't you agree that it resembles a dragon more than an eagle anyway ? How about the word "creature" for now ? Until we get the official word for the nature of the creature... Because you are also right that "Trico" may just be a working name.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation of the Japanese name includes "sea eagle" or "erne", so clearly that's the best description we can use. Also, I've yet to see any source call it a "dragon"; I've seen gryphon, I've seen cat-bird thing, and a whole bunch of other things, but not a dragon (for one, dragons don't usually have feathers). --MASEM (t) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that dragons don't usually have feathers, and in that way I agree it resembles a gryffon more, but the head structure, legs, and long tail are more reminiscent of a dragon than an eagle... In any case, "sea eagle" or "erne" seems like an excellent compromise. Just as long as we don't simply call it an "eagle". Thanks !--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You could use the official pitch from here. It calls the creature an "erne" (more specifically, "大鷲" in Japanese), and goes on to describe it as having the legs and feathers of a bird, an expression reminiscent of a dog's, the body of a cat, a long tail, wings on its back, and most of all, an overwhelming size. Erigu (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So we should simply use "erne" ?--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Once it's been established in the article that it's an extremely weird and quite huge "erne", I think that would be adequate. Erigu (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

大鷲 appears to refer specifically to Haliaeetus pelagicus, known on Wikipedia's English version as Steller's Sea Eagle. The sea eagles as a group are also known as sea eagle and not erne on Wikipedia. I'm going to be bold and change it to "sea eagle", linking to the Wikipedia page on Steller's sea eagles. If you look at the pictures of real Steller's Sea Eagles, while of course Trico is fantastic, there is a definite resemblance. joye (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Steller's sea eagle" seemed way too specific to me, considering the fact we're obviously not talking about an actual Steller's sea eagle, and the literal meaning of "大鷲" ("great eagle"... nothing about the sea). So I came up with "erne": a generic term that applies to any sea eagle[2] without mentioning the sea. Erigu (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As we have a reliable source that says the title translates to "great man-eating eagle" (this is from [3], we need to stikc to that and not guess words otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They may be reliable overall, but their translation is a bit strange... And since when do we need sources for mere translations anyway? Erigu (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible release date but we need better confirmation

Please keep eyes open: UK stores are saying Oct 7 for release, but as vendors they aren't reliable (and we can't use this article from Eurogamer [4] since it's based on those dates). A better confirmation would be needed to include this. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

What resolution is this game at? I wont play if its less than 1080p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.61.42 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoshifusa Hayama and Fumito Ueda's departure

Should their departure be added to the development section? http://www.gamebandits.com/news/ps3/the-last-guardian-team-ico-producer-leaves-project-25161/ http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39100/Confirmed_Ico_Creator_Fumito_Ueda_Leaves_Sony.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.63.245 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ueda's just got confirmed today, I will add it soon enough (it was only rumored in the last twk weeks)...--MASEM (t) 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled

Let's hope it isn't true, but check this article out http://www.destructoid.com/gamestop-is-calling-to-say-the-last-guardian-is-canceled-218394.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.48.230 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a better source. But it is something to watch for :( --MASEM (t) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sony tells Kotaku "This is not true" [5]. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to request that we don't add this information in until we know for sure what the situation is. We have no idea why Gamestop did what they did, and to add that would confuse the article. Once we can be clear about that, then addition makes sense. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gamestop confirms that this was because the game did not have a set release date, they removed it from the system until it does. [6]. I don't think this is a big issue to include even at this point, barring if the larger issue of this practice by Gamestop becomes important. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now we have something to work with, this piece suggesting the misstep will harm sales of the title. [7]. I'll add it in later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? That this misstep could be costly for Sony is pure speculation from the author's part with nothing to back it up. I'd argue that the amount of people who preorder games from Gamestop before there even is a release date is quite a small percentage of those who will end up buying the game. :) --Conti|✉ 19:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Now it's done. http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/06/07/the-last-guardian-cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.24.131 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't trust an article that claims it is from "Sony's internal meeting last week". That's rumor-mongering. It could be true, but we need to have it out of Sony's mouth. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah: [8] (Rohde is a Sony Playstation team member). --MASEM (t) 05:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

God of War team helping development

http://www.destructoid.com/god-of-war-team-helping-to-finish-the-last-guardian-222514.phtml

This should probably be added to the article.--Kingplatypus 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

That's in there already, though not from that article (SCE Santa Monica is the official studio name). --MASEM (t) 16:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS3 or PS4

The infobox currently reads PS3, on Team ICO it read PS 4 (I just changed that to TBA, but who knows if that sticks). http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-03-shuhei-yoshida-playstation-4-indies-and-the-xbox-one seems to make it clear that it's really unknown at the moment (well, I can't imagine it being anything but PS 4, but what I can imagine is not really relevant to the article). I just got reverted for changing PS3 in the infobox to PS3 or PS4, and I wonder what a constructive way forward is. Keeping it at PS3 untill something more definite comes out? I'm rather opposed to that, as it seems to indicate PS3 as a fact, while it is pretty unsure at the moment. Other options could be keeping it blank, setting it to TBA, or making it PS3 or PS4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The last official word was "PS3". The entry on Team Ico is not correct, so I reverted that to PS3. Given how much time the game was under development with the PS3 model, it seems more likely to be a PS3 than PS4. We have noted the PS4 launch has come and gone so the reader can determine this might not be final. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

From the referenced source (which is also used in the article)

Q: What console is it coming out on?
Shuhei Yoshida: Ahh... That, I cannot talk about.

seems to indicate that PS3 isn't the only official word anymore though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For all we know, he could be consider a Vita platform. There's not enough there to diverge from the original announcement of a PS3 game, though we can state that whether the final platform will be PS3 is still in question. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to have something indicating that it's still in question, but I'm not sure what format is best for that in the infobox. I think we can agree (can we?) that it will definitely a Sony platform at this point, and that it won't be PS1 or PS2, but that flat-out stating PS3 is possibly misleading. How about keeping it blank for now? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points; it's better to just leave it TBD and explain that in the lead (that PS3 was the intended the target) but what it will be on when out is in question. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Doesn't happen too often that I actually see BRD work and end up with consensus without drama, but I'm always happy when it does :) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

On 7 JUN 2014 the game is NOT OFFICIALLY cancelled. REF : http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/08/the-last-guardian-cancelled EDIT REF : http://ps4daily.com/2014/06/last-guardian-cancelled-rumor/ 123.192.63.157 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Since IGN's original story has now been called out as "BS" there's no reason to make any changes to reflect this. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting the History section

Don't have the energy to do it now and I need to think about how I'd approach it, but I think we need to rework the history section to reparse how the years from 2009 to now (2014) are handles, focusing less on individual lack-of-appearances at conventions and just more on the general lack of no-shows. Obviously we need to call out Ueda's departure from Sony but I'm not sure yet about the rest. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Evan Narcisse article reference

Hello!

This is my first attempt at discussion on wikipedia /wave

My issue with this page is the Evan Narcisse article reference. I have actually tried to delete this on many occasions. I come back to this page many times in the hopes of finding out new information with regards to this game, one that I'm still hoping sees a release date. And every time I scroll to the bottom, I'm irked by that Kotaku article reference. This tidbit of information is an opinion and not fact. Indeed, it states a few times throughout that it is opinion: "Evan Narcisse for the website Kotaku opined..." and "....reducing the essentialness of the title, according to Narcisse." Even the original article it references is called "Maybe I Don't Need The Last Guardian Anymore." That's all well and fine for you, Mr. Narcisse, but I find this to be out of place on a page that references interviews and articles that reveal FACTS about the progress of the game. Whether or not I agree with what Evan Narcisse is trying to say is irrelevant. The point is that it is his opinion and it doesn't belong here.

Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view (from: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)." I don't find this article or his opinions to be neutral. Can we stick to facts and not one person's opinion?

Tanzilliath (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an important opinion, however, on the impact of the delay, and one shared by many others (note how non-chalantly any news stories on TLG when all Sony states is "it's still in development" are written). It is a opinion by a notable journalist (not a random blogger) and thus appropriate. If the issue is that it is possible intermixed with facts, that's something that can be fixed without removal, but outright removal at the present time is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an "important opinion" exactly? Why is the opinion of a "notable journalist" appropriate on a page/website that strives for a neutral point of view? Again, this is not the point. It doesn't matter where the opinion came from, or what the opinion is. It is still just an opinion, one that not everybody shares and one that is hardly neutral. Thus, it has no place here. I say again, can we stick to facts and not one person's opinion?

Tanzilliath (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We can use opinions, NPOV policy allows that as long as the opinions are cited and not in WP's voice, that's neutral. And what's important here is the impact the delay of the game is having on it. One is the departure of some of the devs; another is the relevance of the game to today's market. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The departure of the devs is a different article and is relevant, yes.

To be honest with you, I don't even understand why this is an issue. If you look at the 53 articles that are referenced before it, ALL of them concern release dates, status of development, interviews with the creators of the game, etc etc. These are facts. These are tangible things that directly impact the game, from the mouths of the people that are involved with its development. Experts, if you will. They are not personal articles. Then we get a reference to this anomalous article filled with personal opinions that directly relate to Narcisse and Narcisse alone. The entire basis of the article is summed up in the title itself: Maybe *I* Don't Need The Last Guardian Anymore. He doesn't have the same ache for the game as he once did. "As I touched each of these games, the pangs I had for Last Guardian got less sharp." He's filled that void with other games. This is how HE feels. This is how HE has coped. Sure, some people may agree with him, but not everybody. And nowhere in his article is he claiming that everybody feels this way. Just him.

"When Sony confirmed the game's existence in 2009, the video game landscape looked different. By-the-numbers racers, shooters and action-adventure games dominated and indie game development—the risk-taking experimentalism that characterizes the best small-team titles—wasn't as firmly established as it is now." Sure. This is true. He says this. Right after he says "Part of my longing for The Last Guardian comes from the time period when it was revealed." Part of HIS longing. To say that this is "reducing the essentialness of the title" (something Narcisse never says) is extrapolating. It may not be essential to Narcisse any longer, but it is silly to assume that this applies to everybody and is a sweeping generalization. There are PLENTY of people that want this title and think it IS essential. Why does the introduction of more indie games into the market lessen the emotional impact of the game? Can I have some evidence of this? Was Journey not as emotionally stirring because of the existence of Flower or Bastion? No, all of them were amazing in their own right. It is pure speculation to assume that Last Guardian no longer has a place because of the rise of indie games. In fact, I would argue that it will get MORE attention because indie games are actually a THING now. And again, just because Narcisse feels this way, doesn't mean everybody does. And again, he is not trying to say this.

Which takes me back to Narcisse's article. He finished that paragraph with "So, the desire to see a game that would draw from a broader emotional palette was stronger, at least for me." At least for HIM. He wrote something very personal: an article that explores how he is coping with the long wait. Whoever wrote this reference is taking his words, words that express HIS OWN feelings, and applying them to the masses. At no point in Narcisse's original article does he try to apply the way he feels to how everybody feels. At no point in the original articles does he say most of what is said in the reference.

He is not making generalizations. The reference to his article IS making generalizations. He is simply writing about how the long wait has affected him and him only. He does not try to apply his feelings to the masses. However, the reference on this page DOES. And I find that to be incredibly lazy and careless writing. Also the opposite of neutral.

"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information." The reference is an analysis of a personal essay. And an incorrect analysis at that. This just doesn't belong here.

Tanzilliath (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

An opinion by an expert in the field is not the same as publishing own's thoughts and analysis (as a WP editor). Yes, if this was my opinion, obviously that would be a problem. But Evan is writer for a VG RS, and thus his opinion is that of an expert in the field. Yes, he is speaking for himself, but that's fine for WP. Further, you can't site his analysis as "incorrect" since this is his opinion and as a RS, we can't make that type of qualitative judgement. --MASEM (t) 07:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference on the TLG page is to what I was referring, when I quoted that. The reference itself is an analysis and someone's misinterpretation of Narcisse's article. I am talking about the reference, NOT the original article. And I meant that Narcisse is not an expert on the development of the game because he is not involved in that process. The person who wrote the reference analyzed what Narcisse was saying and made inferences and judgments that weren't correct. And I never said his opinion was incorrect. I said that trying to apply what he is saying about himself to everyone is incorrect. The problem is the reference, not the original article. The problem is that whoever wrote the reference is extrapolating information in a personal essay to be the truth of the matter and that can be quite damaging.Tanzilliath (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He is an expert on the video game market and current trends, and is speaking to that point in regards to the delay. He doesn't need to be an expert on the development to provide his opinion on how the market is affecting the importance of this game. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see now that you were the one that included this to begin with. And was it not you that wrote "normally wouldn't include opinions like this but this is a very important statement on how the delay has hurt the game"? How about we just NOT include the opinions? Tanzilliath (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And I see that someone else had the same opinion as I do when deleting this previously: "Removed opinion piece on the delays TLG has been plagued with. The piece served no purpose other than to put a random journalist's thoughts on the matter on a pedestal." Tanzilliath (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tanzilliath, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for opening discussion! I agree with Masem that the opinion piece is rather relevant to the article. Not that this isn't our own analysis (which would be OR), but Narcisse's analysis, and clearly attributed as such. If Kotaku published a piece from Narcisse about the Last Guardian, it's not unreasonable for Wikipedia to publish it. Narcisse's analysis of the impact of the delay is important enough to put in the article - much in the same way as we put in reception on released video games. We can and should publish critical analysis like this on the non-release of a game just as we would publish critical analysis of the release of a game. I really see no reason to omit this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't find this opinion piece to be relevant. Clearly others feel the same, as many people have tried to remove it. A personal essay about the effects on the author due to the delay of a game that has not been released is nothing but speculation and is only damaging and not informative. Narcisse is writing about HIMSELF. The reference is making generalizations based on this. It incorrectly paraphrases a personal essay, and places it into what is supposed to be a neutral, scholarly article on Wikipedia. How is that okay? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." And "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." You are giving undue weight to one person's personal opinion by claiming that EVERYBODY feels this way. You simply can not assume this. Assumptions have no place on Wikipedia. If you want to keep this, then first find an article from another reliable source that claims the SAME or even one that claims the OPPOSITE. If you want to claim that this one person's opinion is a legitimate analysis of the situation as whole, then you need to find another article that supports this. One person's opinion is not neutral. Critical analysis of a game that has already come out is a different matter - at that point, numerous critics and video game experts have written about the subject and you can claim a majority opinion, or balance one person's opinion against another. This is ONE PERSON'S OPINION that is neither proven to be the majority opinion, nor balanced with the opposing opinion. Tanzilliath (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He is writing his opinion as an expert on the video game industry. You're arguing the same thing about how we include reviews for movies and games - yes, they are one person's opinion, but due to their professional background and history, are respected opinions and typically represent a significant portion (not necessary majority) of other video game professions, and such is included. If this was a random blogger, with no evidence of being an establish VG reviewer, you'd be absolutely right, but that's not the case here. This is how we include proper opinions on WP. Yes, it would be nice if there were more people that iterated something on the delay, and as I've pointed out, you can tell by the tone of these articles that many journalists are skeptical of the game even mattering now, but they don't come out and say that, so we can't include others. And this is in lieu of any other notable coverage of the game; if the game does come out, then likely this piece won't be needed, but that's only until if the game is out. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He is writing his opinion as an expert on the video game industry. I never said he wasn't an expert. I said he wasn't an expert on the development of the game. I can't argue against his expertise as a video game reviewer. But that is not the issue. You're arguing the same thing about how we include reviews for movies and games - yes, they are one person's opinion, but due to their professional background and history, are respected opinions and typically represent a significant portion (not necessary majority) of other video game professions, and such is included. No, my argument was that once a game comes out MULTIPLE people write reviews and critiques and we can then form a majority opinion. This is ONE person's opinion and can't be backed by any other sources and thus puts undue weight on ONE PERSON'S opinion. This is a violation of WP's policies, as I quoted above. If this was a random blogger, with no evidence of being an establish VG reviewer, you'd be absolutely right, but that's not the case here. This is how we include proper opinions on WP. He's not reviewing anything. He is simply explaining how the delay has affected HIM. I'm not saying he is a random blogger. That is not the point. Yes, it would be nice if there were more people that iterated something on the delay, and as I've pointed out, you can tell by the tone of these articles that many journalists are skeptical of the game even mattering now, but they don't come out and say that, so we can't include others. This only strengthens my own argument. You can't infer from the TONE of other articles how the majority of people feel. This is your own assumption. Plenty of people report on a subject in a 'nonchalant' manner as you call it... this is how they refrain from placing their personal feelings into a piece. That is good journalism. They are not personal essays and would therefore have a 'nonchalant' tone because there is no room for personal opinion within them. They are simply reporting the current status of a game. Not everybody would come to the same conclusion as you. You are letting your personal assumptions rule this argument. Yes, it would be nice, because then we could have a counter opinion or an opinion that backs what Narcisse is saying. We don't. We have one person's opinion and we can't assume that that is the majority opinion when no one else has said such. Inference and assumption HAVE NO PLACE ON WP. Tanzilliath (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As a quick side-step, you said before that you removed the section multiple times yourself, but that it never stuck. That lead me to assume that the previous removals by several accounts and non-logged in edits were all you. Which is fine, really, especially for a newcomer to Wikipedia. But it's not OK to say several people removed it when it was in fact just you. Could you re-check the past removals and check if it actually were different people, or that you might have lost track of previously used accounts and IPs, but that there is a good possibility that they were your previous accounts? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have edited the article to remove this section as well, because it is opinion and irrelevant. To your point that Tanzilliath is in fact me, can you prove that you are not Masem? Can you prove that you are not Evan Narcisse? Can you prove that you are not Tanzilliath and are in fact trolling the article? That is a ridiculous argument. No further explanation is needed for why this section of the article has been removed, Tanzilliath has gone farther than I see is necessary. Keitolainen (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing others of sockpuppetry, so it's hard to accept claims of taking good faith. Irregardless, we build articles on secondary sources, which include opinions from experts in the field. Expert opinion on the effect of the delay of TLG on its waning importance it not trivial, considering that for the longest time we had an article on the vaporware nature of Duke Nukem Forever. This is completely within policy. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding. I think you missed the point about the sockpuppetry though, I was addressing Martijn Hoeskstra's comment about it. Anyway, a statement about the importance of a game is irrelevant. A statement about the game's flaws or strengths would be relevant, such as a review would provide. They are different things. Also, sorry to point this out but irregardless is not a word. You're thinking of "regardless" or "irrespective." The use of either "ir-" as a preffix or "-less" as a suffix negate the original word, using both makes it a double negative. Keitolainen (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Highly anticipated games are important, and we do discuss their pre-release reception (such as demos at E3, etc.); their failure to be published in a timely manner affects their importance. If/when the game is actually known to be released then yes, we'll likely remove it, but in lieu of a release, this is completely appropriate information to have. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but why don't we leave it in and just move it to a section that's clearly labelled as opinion. That seems less offensive to me. The new criticism section was created by me, but I wasn't logged in at the time. Keitolainen (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For any regular watchers of the article....

Here's an interview with Yoshida explaining how the game became a PS4 game around 2012 and other interview insights. Based on the article structures, wasn't sure the best place to add this myself, given the content and when it actually happened, not when it was revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got that added in the chronological order already where Yoshida was already talking "tech difgiculties in 2012. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

TLG at Tokyo Game Show

Looks like Sony just announced that TLG will have a significant presence (including Ueda) at the TGS. Keep eye out for any articles from that. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Language?

Strange foreign language? its ovious it is japanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, as with Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, it is not Japanese but a made up language. Maybe it's not the same language in all three games, but it's not a real one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.179.83 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

#1 Game of the Year vs on a Game of the Year list

Should a distinction be made between when the game was declared the #1 Game of the Year by a publication, and when it was put somewhere on their list? Per this site (http://gotypicks.blogspot.com/2016/09/2016-game-of-year.html), it's already been #1 on 10 publications (and this doesn't count Easy Allies, who, imo, are notable). But I would imagine that The Last Guardian likely features on most GOTY countdowns somewhere, so it might be more meaningful to clarify when it was listed as #1. Drsmoo (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)