Talk:List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games article.
Article policies
Sony PlayStation Portal
This article is within the scope of the The PlayStation Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of PlayStation products. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-07-27. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Rename

This article, if it is going to stay, should be moved to List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was only one list, which was this one, right?--Ideal4real 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok people. I can't move it because i'm a new user, so I need some help on this.--Ideal4real 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I sucessfully did it.--Ideal4real 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamesharing List

I only have a few, so when more come out, we should all put our knowledge to this topic.--Ideal4real 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

Dark420bishop 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)My friend and I have tested nearly every game that was on this list and many of them did not have game sharing capabilities so they were removed. Games that only had single player demos available were so noted in the description. Although some games like Star Wars Battlefronts II are reported from many places as having game sharing, when we tested them, we could not find the feature anywhere. So unless we could find a reference from a reputable game review that stated the game had game sharing, we assumed our first hand knowledge more reliable. Sites used to double check were GameFAQs, Gamespot, and IGN.

[edit] Reformat

Perhaps we should reformat this list into a table, more like the List of PlayStation Portable games. I was thinking of having four columns as such:

Game name | Region | Gamesharing type | Number of players

Gamesharing types would be something along of the lines of: full game, limited game, mini-game, or demo (single player).

Number of players: 1 for single player demos, 2 for two player, or for example 2-4 for two to four players.

Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? --Transce080 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally suggested merging this article into List of PlayStation Portable games, but obviously all of that information does not fit on that table. So I think the better question would be whether it is necessary to have all of that information on this page, or whether it should just be on the individual articles' page and this article should be merged and just have "Yes" or "No" under the "Share" column in List of PlayStation Portable games? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If we were talking about regular ad-hoc or infrastructure capabilities, I would completely agree with you. However, I think that Gamesharing is a unique and special feature in PSP that deserves more attention. I think we should try to provide as detailed information as possible here in a concise, easy-to-read fashion. I think we have too much information here to combine into the main list, and I don't think it takes away from the main list that this list exists. I think that people appreciate the simplicity here, they don't have to wade through a huge list checking to see which have a "Share" under a particular column. People can use this list and know that every game name here contains Gamesharing and (hopefully in the future) what type of Gamesharing. --Transce080 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's fine. The only wrong point you made is that they would have to "wade through a huge list", because they can easily sort by that column and see which games have gamesharing. But if you're willing to fix up this list and expand it, I will make the "Share" column link to this article. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the new format with the columns but I don't think "Developer" or "Publisher" have any relevance to this list. I think that is information that should be contained on the main list and having it in both places is redundant and introduces possibilities for inconsistency. I think the only information relevant to the gamesharing is the name of the game, the region (for example USA or EUR - we could use the images from the main list), the type of gamesharing, and how many players can play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's something along the lines of what I think the table should look like with an example. Let me know what you think. You get the basic idea. I'm not so concerned with the formatting as I am with getting the most relevant information on there.
Title Region Gameshare Type Number of players
Bomberman Flag of Europe Flag of the United States Flag of Japan Flag of Australia Regular 2-4
Twisted Metal: Head On Flag of Europe Regular

Okay, I'm thinking for gamesharing types, scratch full or limited and just say regular. I can only think of one game that gives you the full game via gamesharing and I'm not even 100% on that one. So we would make the list of acceptable categories for gamesharing:

  • Regular - denotes the ability to play, with two or more players, at least a portion of what would be considered the "main" game.
  • Mini-game - denotes the ability to play mini-games with two or more players but not the "main" game.
  • Demo - denotes a single player demo, unable to play multiplayer.
I completely agree. I'm not sure why I put those columns. For some reason in the back of my mind that's what I thought you had said, even though you obviously didn't. I was just trying to make it into a table. I took the information from the PSP games list, so change it up however you like. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the direction we're going with this. I filled in some of the region information. The table is looking good, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Should the region column be divided as I have above? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary but I think it looks fine either way. I noticed you rearranged the region icons, is there some standard for their organization? I was merely listing the regions in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I arranged them in the order that they were released. That is why I stopped at the the M's, I haven't gotten farther than that in the list of PSP games. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should come up with some arbitrary order for them. Although I know they're sorted in release order, to the uninformed, I think it looks random and messy. That's just my two cents and that goes for the main list, also. -Transce080 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the above version would look good, especially if we can figure out a way to make the region columns sortable. I couldn't figure it out. On the main list however, I think they should stay in the release order, although there should be a note in the intro, which I keep forgetting to get around to. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above version works for me. -Transce080 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In about a week, I will have access to another PSP and I will make a dedicated effort to fill the rest of the Gamesharing Type column. -Transce080 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Having been unable, in several cases, to find an exact number of players for gamesharing features, I will start using the published number of players for the main game. If we should find out the gamesharing feature allows a different number of players than the regular game, we can always edit it from there. (Additional note: however, I will only do this for games which I have already verified have 'Regular' gamesharing type, so as to not give the false impression that a 'Demo' game might allow play with more than one player). -Transce080 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gamesharing type column filled and reformatting done. The sorting is acting buggy and I'm not sure why. Errors only appear after I try to sort a column so I removed the sorting for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It sorts funny because it thinks the individual regions are the first row. Everything can be fixed if we remove the Regions Released as above, but do you think it is obvious enough what the regions are for by themselves? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Title AUS EUR JPN USA Gameshare Type Number of Players
Bomberman Flag of Australia Flag of Europe Flag of Japan Flag of the United States Regular 2-4
Twisted Metal: Head On Flag of Europe Regular
I don't know. It seems obvious to us, but I'm not sure how someone new would see it. I think the test version above looks fine, personally. Also, I would like to have the images of the flags centered within their column. I was trying to achieve this effect but I don't have much experience working with wikitables.-Transce080 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that not having 'Regions Released is fine, as above, or that it should retain that cell? I just realized that even if the region columns are sortable, they do not actually sort, so the format is almost useless. The only way I can figure out to center the images is to set every cell to align=center, but that would not only severely increase the size, but would be a lot of work, so as of now, I have no recommendation. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it think it would have been fine without the Regions Released but if it won't be sortable anyway, I think it looks nicer with the Regions Released head row intact. -Transce080 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

Suggestions to remove from the list (unless anyone can come up with proof that the game has Gamesharing):

  • The Simpsons
  • MLB '07 - The Show (USA) [note]

Note: This article states the game has Gamesharing but I can't find it in the USA version. Perhaps a EUR-only feature?

I agree with both. I could not find anything either. Personally, I do not trust IGN/all of its sister sites, because I have repeatedly found wrong information on there. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Assessment

This is in response to the request at WP:VG/A. I'm leaving this list at Start-class. I will not promote it to B-class without references, especially in an article like this. It's not that I think that the list is wrong, it's just that I have no proof that any of these games are gamesharing games. You need, unfortunately, references for each and every one if you want to get to B, A, or FL class. Other than that, my concerns are that the tables aren't sortable (minor, but it's odd, considering the examples here on the talk page are), and that there nothing stating whether or not this is all of them or just some/most of them. --PresN (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)