Talk:Machinima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Etymology

The existing information that the word is a portmanteau of "machine" and "cinema" is correct. It may also be of interest to note that it is an accidental mutation of a conscious neologism. I just wrote an account [1] of the origins of the term, including quotes from relevant e-mail. (A few years back I would have edited something into the Wikipedia article myself, but things look a little more formal nowadays and I'm worried about the exact rules for citation, and the fact that the article is already large.) --Anthony Bailey 80.229.18.75 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Zsoverman added it; I just cleaned up the reference a bit and clarified the paragraph so that it's clear that Paul Marino's book corroborates your primary account. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources whenever possible. — TKD::Talk 04:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songvids

Should songvids be mentioned in the context of Machinima? I get the impression they're one of the most prolific amateur forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.238.36 (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in cases where a notable machinima production is a video. The article on Paul Marino, for example, mentions his work I'm Still Seeing Breen. But I'm not sure that there's a broad generalization to be made, any more than to say that some machinima productions are comedies, some are used for advertisement or advocacy, etc. If you find a source for a generalization, let us know. — TKD::Talk 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of examples

After some thought, I decided to recast the sprawling examples section as a list for now. I've also cut several unsourced generalizations for now; anything that can be sourced should be added back in. My philosophy is that it's easier and safer to work from sources to add information, not to try to find sources for existing text (in fact, when I wrote the first couple sections of the article, I only used very little of what was there before). The items in the list should eventually be dispersed to appropriate places in the running text (don't worry, we still need to write a whole sections on production techniques, so there will be opportunities to mention the more prevalent engines) or perhaps integrated into list of machinima productions.

Another reason for doing this was that, after discussing things with Drat, another editor of machinima-related articles, we agreed that there are just too many machinima-capable game engines out there nowadays for a prose list by game engine to be viable long-term in this top-level article on machinima. This might've worked a few years ago, but it won't in 2007, not with the proliferation of machinima. Instead, we should try to focus on other ways of organizing notable productions. I've started by listing genres from the Kelland/Morris/Lloyd book. In more general terms, it's a sign of deficient article organization if there are many subsections with one or two paragraphs, as was the case here. It's also generally bad for a section to have 15 paragraphs.

Those who know me know that I don't like long bulleted lists. Short-term, though, I do think that it's at least a marginally better way to present productions not covered elsewhere for now, until we can expand list of machinima productions or incorporate the information elsewhere in the article on a case-by-case basis. I also prefer it in that it somewhat de-emphasizes that this article isn't really meant to be a long list by game engine (by contrast, previously the list probably took up half of the article), but instead a broad overview of the various topics surrounding machinima in general. — TKD::Talk 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that I took the liberty of removing productions that were already mentioned in the running text, and one or two productions that I don't think have third-party reliable coverage. If you can find a good non-trivial third-party source for Potentior (which looks interesting, but WP:ILIKEIT doesn't satisfy verifiability and neutral point of view), please do re-add it. Also, I did remove some analysis. In general I don't doubt that it has a sound basis, but on Wikipedia we need a reliable source that directly and specifically provides that analysis. — TKD::Talk 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Im surprised that Red Vs Blue and Halo CE and Halo 2 aren't mentioned. Wasn't is those games which made machinima main stream. I think that the introduction of their series should be included in the page due to it being a major turning point in machinima history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leemyster (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That list is basically a random sampling of examples that have yet to be integrated into the main text; it's not really meant to be comprehensive, but rather almost a to-do list. That's why it's named "other notable examples". Read the history section; Red vs. Blue and Halo are mentioned. — TKD::Talk 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machinima Legal Issues/Microsoft Rules/Blizzard Rules

I've noticed the article is completely devoid of any discussion of the legal issues in machinima? I know there is significant disagreement among scholars on some of the finer points, but shouldn't it at least be brought up? To the same end, what about the new Microsoft and Blizzard machinima rules? The most up to date analysis I've seen on Microsoft's is at [2], and Blizard's are discussed [3]. Any thoughts on inclusion? I figured it would go into the legal section as two subsections, unless "Machinima Legal Issues" is an article-caliber topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.171.220 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs to have coverage of this topic, but I'm not sure that the links that you provided qualify as a reliable source, since it is self-published material by an author whose prior work in that area does not appear to have been published in a reliable source. — TKD::Talk 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
His work on video game legal issues has been published in the Gaming Law Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.171.220 (talk • contribs)
OK; thanks for that. I wasn't familiar with his work. I'll keep all of these links in mind when writing that section, unless, of course, someone beats me to it. :) — TKD::Talk 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal

What is the legal status of the videos?--Playstationdude (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the End-User License Agreement. Most game developers/publishers retain the rights to their graphics and animation; some game EULAs address this and allow for non-profit, amateur distibution for Machinima productions. A tiny minority of companies grant a commercial use license. Quite a lot of Machinima is technically illegal.... Prof Wrong (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you people that work on Wiki can see this request. I would like a list filled with Machinimas. Here is a requested list.

Red Vs blue Spriggs Civil Protection P.A.N.I.C. The Naighberhood

And so on..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is longer than the actual Animation article

Some serious trimming needs to happen to cut the useless information. Everything ever produced doesn't need to get mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.7.199 (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)