Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhythm game/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:01, 16 November 2011 [1].

---

Rhythm game

Rhythm game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Rhythm game/archive1

Nominator(s): bridies (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC); Masem

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm reasonably confident it meets the criteria in terms of research, is at least as good as the only current video game genre FA -4X- and User:JimmyBlackwing recently copy edited the article. As he's had previous success in FA-level copy editing I think it should also meet the prose criteria. bridies (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment

• Linking terms in the citation which are similar shall be limited and balance and logical. See WP:OVERLINKING. --Efe (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. You mean there are too many links in the references sections i.e. we should only link a publication in the first instance? Or do you mean there's overlinking in the whole article? bridies (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Compare formatting of FNs 1 and 2
• Dead links, for example in FN 47, need to be dealt with
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
• Page ranges should be notated with "pp." and endashes
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Books need ISBNs
• FN 43: magazine name should either be italicized or typeset as it is for its web format
• FN 46: publisher name is wrong. Also, should note that this source requires login/registration
• Be consistent in how you notate CNet. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Think I've got all that, bar the dead links which I'm still working on. As Masem noted 1UP is a reliable video game source in general and Kohler in particular has authored a couple of books. bridies (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the last dead link, which was not essential. bridies (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• • 1UP.com is one of the core gaming news sites, long history of editorialship and fact-checking (per WP:VG/S). --MASEM (t) 13:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The lead needs to make reference to the rise of motion control dance games for comprehensiveness. Indrian (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be well covered now. bridies (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, its been taken care of. Indrian (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking things like Rock Band and Guitar Hero among others are not only overlinked throughout the main article, but even in the same section (though in different subsections); this needs to be fixed; I think it should be linked once in the lead and another when first mentioned in the main article, and no more-SCB '92 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the lead, I can see only 2 links to Guitar Hero and they're different things. One links to the franchise and one actually links to Guitar Hero (video game). I think I got the rest. bridies (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I already posted my thoughts here, so I'll just summarize it a bit. Essentially, I feel that the article could be expanded—meaningfully—by adding a few sections describing aspects unique to this genre. First of all, perhaps split Description and Game design (if enough content warrants it), and then I suggested a few new sections, like a Business one describing the unique business aspects of this genre, especially when compared to other ones. I don't think there's been a genre FA yet, so this article could be a great example for future ones. So far, this is pretty barebones; the term "genre" seems to evoke a lot more in the mind than just a stroll through history of it. For some of the sections I suggested, for instance, if you don't want to duplicate info, then perhaps split stuff out of History into new sections, as long as it makes sense. An example could be the dollar figures given in the History section; all of that might better serve the reader by being in the suggested Business section. And so on. Gary King (talk · scripts) 07:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll mull this over for a bit, but actually there is an FA precedent for genres: 4X, which I linked above. This article follows the format used in that FA. bridies (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but there are really no "precedents" for FAs IMO, only examples. Each article should be modeled based on what the content is about. Rhythm games especially are very unique in the gaming world as you know. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I think there are sources that could build a decent "Impact" section. Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series is probably a good place to start. Of course, care should be taken to avoid undue weight towards the minute pop culture references. I assume that some tidbits in the current content could be moved to a new impact section. I haven't read through the article in a while though, so I could be wrong. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

I think another concern is that the article not become another Guitar Hero spin-off. OK... so what is the consensus here? An "impact" section and/or a "business" section? To be honest I personally would prefer to integrate any kind of "real world" information into the history section and continue to divide that into chronological/thematic subsections. Whatever the case, this will probably require a couple of days of reading and head-scratching... bridies (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I only mentioned the article because it would provide some of the information relevant to an "impact" section. Please do avoid any undue weight towards Guitar Hero unless there is a proportionate amount of sources to back it up.

In the link below, only three editors commented on an impact section: me, Gary King, and Jinnai. Gary and I disagree on which route to take: general impact or business. Jinnai commented that there should be some kind of impact section.

Personally, I think a general "Impact" section is the route to go and any business trends should be integrated into the history section. Basically use the history section to explain what happened, why it happened, and how it happened and use the impact section to explain any major or lasting effects that happened as a result of the history info.

I think we all agree, however, that the form of such a section is dependent on the sources out there. I guess do the research and see what you can put together. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

This type of situation is the worst nightmare of anyone who nominates at FAC, but I don't think I can argue against your point. Bridies: if you can pull together the section they're asking for, I'll give it a fast/thorough copyedit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• WikiProject Video Game discussion - This was more about video game genre articles in general, but this nomination brought it up so this discussion is relevant.∞陣内Jinnai 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started drafting up some stuff taken from Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series. At the moment I’m looking at the games’ effects on music education. I will perhaps expand on that article’s points to incorporate dissenting views (per Gary King’s comment on the WP:VG talk page i.e. “making people bad at playing real guitar”). To be honest though, aside from hype coming from those involved with the game and a couple of disgruntled quotes from has-beens influential guitarists, the main conclusion I would draw is that the games have not had a hell of a lot of impact in this respect, especially in comparison to their huge sales reach. See the Salon writer’s lukewarm reception to the Fretlight (already a step removed from Guitar Hero, never mind other rhythm games), his assertion that “most guitar players don't even consider (Guitar Hero) part of their world”, that “Shaffer and others in the music business are dubious of the video game's effect on young people's musical abilities” and finally that “Industry figures indicate that the guitar is far less popular today than it was in the 1960s” (which would seem to trump the guitar teacher’s quote).
Aside from that I may incorporate some stuff from the “health” section. I’m still very skeptical about how much of this type of content should be in this article and wonder if anyone could point to anything which is not about either Guitar Hero or Rock Band. I also think more of this information is covered in the article than it’s been given credit for (or are we talking a question of detail here?). We’ve covered the fact that downloadable content creates revenue for both artists and creators; that a large percentage of rhythm gamers are female and that the genre’s “popularity expanded the console video game market and its demographics”. With regards to peripherals, we know that the cost of producing and shipping them prevented GuitarFreaks from getting out of Japan (OK, the source has these details but the article just says “cost”; we could probably change that...) and that the prohibitively high cost of these things was thought to be behind stagnant sales for later installments. From between those lines I’d draw that the peripherals aren’t such a high (net) earner. I’ll dig into this.
I agree that this may be a subjective personal preference: Gary King is “personally fascinated by the business aspect” whereas the last thing I would like to see in the article is more dollar signs and sales figures. Anyone? bridies (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I also think the notion that "The genre is probably a bigger money grab than any other, especially since it's still pretty new and companies are still testing out the best ways to make the most money" strongly goes against what is found within the sources, which often focus on the commercial successes of a few years ago versus the more recent stagnation. It does echo sentiments such as " "The dream I envisaged 15 years ago, of music games gaining mass appeal, has to a degree become a reality...To me "Rhythm Action" can be viewed as nothing more than a gateway to the endless possibilities that music games hold. We truly hope that our fellow developers can help to unlock the potential of this blooming genre." [2] But this would be more the domain of Music video game. bridies (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, then that's what the sources say. It sounds like the you've found some informative stuff. If there are conflicting sources, then that should make for a good impact section. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

You don't need to just focus on the guitar games. Dance games seem to have taken over from them over the past year or two. Focusing on them a bit might also bring a new perspective to the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A comment that I have on rhythm games that doesn't necessarily apply to other genres short of like FPS and MMO is the size of the actual market, and rhythm games pose even a larger challenge in that it is one of the genres that is probably most notable for the rise and fall of the peripherial based gameplay (FPS and MMOs and nearly all other genres simply continue to grow) The problem is is that business, sales figures, etc. aspect of the genre is strongly tied with the history of the genre, making it difficult to write out a separate section. On the other hand, if you took FPS, you can always pull out sources that have total sales figures of the top games and %age of the market, and a lot of other equivalent details, but you only need a few slices to show how popular these are.

How best to approach that with the rhythm game genre is not a simple question, and likely very unique to the genre. I understand trying to define a norm that can work across all genre types in the future, but I caution that this is probably the worst example case to start with because it that business aspect is well outside the normal of any other genre. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is before we can say this is a good example for an exception to the normal flow a genre article should have, we have to have a normal flow and as yet we don't have any other genre article up to FA level other than 4X which is still somewhat debated whether its even a true subgenre and really done before we had a somewhat good idea what makes a good genre article. Therefore if we really need to have some other defiition for the standard of what a video game (sub)genre article looks like before we can start deciding how Rythm game looks, we should put this one on the back burner because it will probably be used as an example whether people here want to or not in constructing any future FACs.∞陣内Jinnai 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I point to first person shooter or massively multiplayer online game as examples of how a genre is normally growing in the real world but not as examples of good articles at the present time. If you take the FPS approach, and consider that we have Definition, Game Design/mechanics, and History, the only section per the above analysis is a Business or Impact section, and here, all one needs is to pull what the current market numbers are for your top FPS games if not more detailed data. I'm not saying we need to jump and fix FPS right now to get it to FA, but envision what that structure is like, how it can apply to the other broad genre articles, and then identify why rhythm games are a unique case or more difficult case to work that. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem Masem is that there are equally good examples that are completely different such as role-playing video game, real-time strategy and Bishōjo game. Using FPS as an example is not a good way to do it just because it could resemble this article. This is why the discussion should be had before this goes forward outside here (I don't know why it was moved here because this is a broader discussion on how to deal with video game genre articles).∞陣内Jinnai 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think those articles are clearly not "equally good". bridies (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, especially with the MMO article.∞陣内Jinnai 05:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Forget MMO, there's still a plethora of other genre articles using this format which are not tagged for various issues, don't have large swathes of uncited content, etc. bridies (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And my point is that following that specific structure doesn't make it automatically better than another structure which is what it sounds like you're implying.∞陣内Jinnai 06:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think my point was missed. I'm saying that the asked for information is miscellanea heavily intertwined with Guitar Hero and Rock Band and with limited applicability to dancing games, let alone other rhythm games. I think sources which discuss general rhythm games do so in the format reflected by the article up to know. There may be worthy content to be added but IMO really this should have been a question of a minor filling out of the history section. Still, you asked for it... I've pulled together a few paragraphs which I've presently titled "Health and education" and I concede there may be more if we really need to cover every study and every musician with an opinion. For now, see what you think... bridies (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like a good addition. I searched online for "dance video games therapy" and found a few interesting articles, and this one from UC Santa Barbara seems most useful, which discusses dance games and how they are used for all types of therapy. Could be a useful article; there are a few references at the bottom, too. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)We don't need to cover everything, but we do need to give the proper weight to everything. If there are case studies out there that could dispute any of the info (Google scholar is good for finding those published online), then we should do so. The article should summarize things, not repeat everyone's viewpoints.∞陣内Jinnai 06:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments for now, leaning support— I've been keeping one eye on the discussion above, but I'm not really interested in project style at this point. Does the article explain what a game is? Yes, and I'd be hard-pressed to come up with terms less jargon-laden. I never found myself asking "so what" as to why this topic was its own article--it's a straight documentation of a billion-dollar genre. If there is enough to merit an 'impact' evaluation, so much the better.
  • "This allowed Red Octane and Harmonix to capitalize on the formula in 2005 with the Western-targeted Guitar Hero." →This line feels like it should be in the next section, rather than the 1980s-2000 one. That would require changing a following line, " Gitaroo Man featured a guitar-playing protagonist four years before the release of Guitar Hero, though the game employed a conventional rather than guitar-shaped controller.", but that might be a good thing-- using past tense for this mention of a guitar-playing protagonist is a break from established cadence and once again is framing the article content by a hitherto barely-discussed game.
  • There's some problems with excessive passive sentence construction that on occasion makes things harder to read, ex. "Specialized titles that targeted specific genres and demographics, such as Band Hero for pop music and Lego Rock Band for younger players, were released." → Who published these, anyhow?
  • Minor Manual of Style issues: non-breaking spaces should be added between units (WP:NBSP—I've done a few in the latter sections).

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fails 1(b) and 1(c) and 2(b)

• This article hasn't been thoroughly researched, it does not cover the introduction of rythum games as mini-games into other game types (not asking much here, but it doesn't even have a source that mentions it).
• Second, a quick google scholar search shows that there is still plenty of information not documented (being behind a pay wall isn't an excuse, although I do sympathize if that does make it more difficult). For example on the first page there is a case study on the entertainment impact the devices have, something not covered here, information on the impact on blind people, the role these games have played in bringing music to elementary school children, use in helping with devices for the elderly, more indepth analysis (ie a superior resource) for the evolution of the controllers, etc.

  I will look into this -and the other references linked here- hopefully later today. Still, I believe we have covered the use as an aid to blind people and bringing music to elementary school children. bridies (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Third, the last 2 paragraphs in health and education are solely about Guitar Hero making the crisitism that this a glorification of only about a select few games more prominant. Partly this is IMO a problem on focusing on specific games rather than concept of a "rhythm game".

  As I have said, I do not believe significant press of this kind has been given to anything other than guitar Hero or Rock Band (OK, I will scour Google Scholar and such before definitely arguing this). And your second point is why I don't believe this content should have been added. I think sources which discuss the "concept of a rhythm game" will focus on the genre's history. bridies (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Well, this and the last point are crucial elements. Even for stuff like education, the sources just cite Guitar Hero currently which gives undue weight to that one franchise. Even if the sources use it primarly, the article should reflect this isn't a 1-title article.∞陣内Jinnai 07:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess we agree, sort of. I don't really think this article should cover the punditry on whether Guitar Hero (or Rock Band, which IMO is pretty interchangeable as far as this stuff goes) is good for music students and think that this weighs the article towards Guitar Hero (and Rock Band). But it was asked for and seems to have been well-received. I'm also struggling to see what else is likely to get this kind of coverage (although again I will dig deeper before definitively taking this stance). There's dance games used in P.E. but we've covered that. bridies (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Finally, the article only talks about rhythm games that use special controlelrs or perifirials. It barely talk about rhythm games that rely solely on existing a controllers and have no option for a specialized controller. Other than info in the lead there is no mention of these games in the body. (If they are they are buried very well). I see one for the NDS and that's it which ultimately is not a controller.

  Completely spurious. The article discusses PaRappa, Bust a Groove, Vib-Ribbon, Amplitude and Frequency. Parappa is fairly prominent and the others have generous coverage for obscure games (they are in fact noted for being obscure). Specific suggestions for anything missed are welcome (maybe Um Jammer Lammy). Overall I think the non-peripheral based sector of this genre is decidedly minor. bridies (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Willing to concede that point.∞陣内Jinnai 07:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Also as far as structure goes, I think dividing 2011 from 2009-2010 is biased division of the history based on recentism because its too soon to say the fallout and saturation is over. It's not even 2012 and yet the division makes it appear that its a done deal. I think those 2 sections should be merged.∞陣内Jinnai 21:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  This dichotomy strongly reflects the sources and it doesn't matter what might or might not happen in 2012. bridies (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• The argument on crystal is completely absurd. Its exactly that you don't know what's going to happen that you shouldn't have a seperate section for this year alone.∞陣内Jinnai 07:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I actually completely misread this point in my earlier rush. I thought you were referring to the division between "rise" and "saturation" and misunderstood the reference to 2012 a prediction that the stagnation would not continue. I agree we can merge the relevant section if consensus wills it. bridies (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Some issues with MOS: There appears to be a problem with a non-breaking space in the first paragraph for 2009-2010. There is also at least one instance of improper placement for inline ciations before the emdash punctuation rather than after. Multiplayer is wikilinked, but not single-player.

  Also i'm concerned with the liberal use of scare quotes with the likes of "social gaming" is in quotes. Same with "battles" and "perform".∞陣内Jinnai 07:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed or modified these. I can't see any other examples. bridies (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

*Quick update:

• I've expanded dance games' health benefits. In terms of finding countervailing studies, the closest I've got at the moment is this. At first glance this seems to say DDR (mentioned in the blurb) is only a fraction effective as traditional exercise, but there's no specific findings for DDR and it seems to have been lumped in with things like Wii Sports (this issue is complicated by the fact that dance games are often studied in conjunction with other exergames, which may only involve flicking one's wrist). The Uni. California source that Gary linked on the contrary states that dance games can get a player into aerobic workout territory and are potentially beneficial to one's cardiovascular health. I think I will add that reference, and leave it at that. Opinions?
• I've added dance games' use in health care for the elderly. At the moment a lot of this stuff seems to be in the prototype stage. If anyone feels the need for an examination of broader purely social gaming for the elderly I can look into that; I've run out of time today.
• I tracked down in mainstream sources the for-the-blind game Jinnai found on Google Scholar and added a mention, which should temper the guitar game lean a little (actually next to it is Frets of Fire, one of the few guitar games which is not Guitar Hero or Rock Band). There are a couple of things (the Salon article and a business journal) which suggest that the drum peripheral has greater musical and educational potential than the actual guitar controller. Add this?
• It seems Guitar Center did a survey on guitar games' ability to inspire new and experienced musicians, which was published on GameDaily (now defunct, I believe) and cited in a couple of papers. I guess this would be a worthwhile addition to the anecdotal quotes and will likely get to this tomorrow.
• I've merged the last section per Jinnai. I myself am ambivalent either way.
• I'll get onto the (hopefully easy to source) mini-games concern tomorrow. And will round-up the MOS issues one we've cleared the research concerns. I'm also bearing in mind Gary King would like to see more gameplay info. In the meantime, anyone feel there's anything else still missing? bridies (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I'm done with the health and education section and that it's comprehensive and a good summary of the relevant research. I think we're in agreement that there's a lot of lean towards Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero and to a lesser extend Rock Band, but this reflects the heavy weight of coverage towards these games. If reviewers want to see this content summarised here and not just in the games' respective articles, it will inevitably look like this. Nevertheless there is a smattering of other games mentioned.
  • I've added a mention of rhythm-games-as-mini-games in the gameplay section. Aside from this, I don't know how this section would be expanded. The gameplay conventions of this genre are not terribly complicated and as Dave Fuchs noted the section explains what a rhythm game is, allowing the reader to understand all the following real world goings-on. Things like downloadable content, health benefits etc. are amply covered in other sections.
  • Still working on the style issues, but I think getting consensus on the content concerns is most critical. bridies (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.