Talk:Nibris

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose to keep the Sadness page as is. Subsequent announced projects from this developer don't need their own page.Tehw1k1 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask "why"? Other games with little or no information receive their own pages (see Wii Chess and Nintendo Magic), so why shouldn't these? The only thing that should happen to these pages is a clean-up, adding new info (from interviews with Nibris) and references. --Zooba 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo has a well-established reputation as a developer and publisher. Nibris does not. If Nibris announces five more projects tomorrow, do they all deserve their own page?Tehw1k1 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if they reveal more than the name/concept art. This has happened both with ROTR and Double Bloob, through interviews and videos on YouTube. --Zooba 13:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How can they be considered legit when their games only get covered by one source (cubed3) no other publication covers them, they announce partnerships which end up getting dissolved, they have not gotten a publisher for any of their projects, and they say they will show gameplay at Leipzig and wind up showing nothing? Articles like these only contribute undeserved legitimacy to them. Posting some badly photographed videos on Youtube is not the same as getting previews from well established sourceS-plural, or exhibiting their games for journalists or the public. Tehw1k1 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. Tehw1k1 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And the topics regarding Nibris and its games are "third-party verifiable" - Cubed3 is a third party, in that it is not part of Nibris itself. Furthermore, they have gotten a publisher and did show gameplay at Lepizig (behind doors). This, coupled with their videos on YouTube, show that they are a proper, albeit small, developer. To this effect they are not a "very small 'garage' or local [company]", because they are communicating outside of their local area, for lack of a better term. --Zooba 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing. Every source of news on Nibris comes from the same site -cubed 3- and you don't see how that is a problem. Ok, whatever. Have fun in your fantasyland playing all those awesome Nibris games. Tehw1k1 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a problem if we assume Cubed3 to be a credible and reliable source of information. I do, so what's the problem? --Zooba 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see we are just talking in circles. Are you saying every other media outlet that covers games is less reliable than cubed 3 because they choose not to cover Nibris' games? Are you willing to agree to a deadline, by which time Nibris is required to show more gameplay or have a game published, and if they don't, lights out on wikipedia? They have said they will be at the E4all expo. What if they don't show up there, either? Tehw1k1 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You assume that other game websites choose not to preview Nibris' games. Perhaps Nibris simply choose not to send them to those websites and companies, for some reason, and has instead formed a close relationship with Cubed3? Either way, I would agree that if Nibris has not got a single game out by the end of the 2008 fiscal year, then they could be classified as vapourware (although a Wiki page should still be kept concerning what they said they planned to do, much like the Phantom article). --Zooba 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to assume, given the derision that any mention of Nibris is given by these sites when they do choose to mention them. Your deadline is March 31, 2008, is that correct? Sure, keep up the Nibris page, and consolidate all the game pages into it. Tehw1k1 06:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Derision? Sources? I can't seem to find such on IGN, for example. Your argument lays on the the idea that Nibris are not a legitimate and certifiable company - there is nothing to directly support this, so your argument for merging fails. --Zooba 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And what is there to support that they are? Even if they are a legit company, what does that have to do with them getting their games published? Legit companies fail to get games published all the time. Note - Sadness was a no show at E for all. Not that I was expecting anything... Tehw1k1 01:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concede. Merge the pages. --Zooba (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK i will take up the fight now from Zooba, no the pages should not be merged. Nibris now have announced their liscence of Gamebryo games engine and this is also confirmed by way of press release on the emergent technologies website. So their legitimacy is no longer questionable. http://www.emergent.net/en/News/Press-Releases/GAMEBRYO-BREATHES-LIFE-INTO-WiiS-FIRST-/ These pages should remain seperate untill Nibris or the team working on them Blobber team announces more information. If their is no subsequent release made (confirmed by games cancellation) then the page of games/projects should be merged into a list of cancelled games by Nibris whether it be adding a cancelled games list on the nibris page or a brand new page. Weeman com (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.