User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151007072528/@comment-4028641-20180212052135

I don't want to presume poor faith, but the fact that the rejection of the pitch to "temporarily make these games invalid" has lead to a pitch to "permanently make all games invalid" makes me believe that the entire point was to do that in the first place.

Here's my stance: there are plenty of wikis that competently cover video game narratives of varying complexities. I understand to some extent that we can not cover games with plots so complex that it is essentially an RPG, but when it comes to a game where the layout of every mission is "Do this one thing, then you go to the next part," then that itself is a coherent enough narrative to cover on the site. I can't see us denying coverage of a video game because we can't agree on if the Eleventh Doctor walked in a straight line to an object" or if he "sort of wobbled around from left to right until reaching the object." If the Eleventh Doctor always'' completed X mission with Y object for Z reason, then that's consistent enough for our pages.

My point in starting this debate was to bring to attention the inconsistent stance when it came to older games, and indeed how our wiki's policy on video games is so hard to piece together that it can be hard to classify games brought to debate. But frankly to say that "all games must be invalid" is too far for me. Think of it this way -- if we banned all of these games right now, what would probably happen would be that someone would start another wiki just for games where they would cover them exactly as we would, and indeed exactly as we can. I don't see the point in forcing our readers to spread to other markets like that or to lose our readership to other splinters. We should at least give an effort to discussing the nature of a narrative, and where the "rift" towards being an RPG occurs by our policies.