#1 Posted by TMThomsen (2078 posts) -
#2 Posted by Marino (4736 posts) -

I think the issue is more that it's a valid concept and people are adding unnecessary games to it.  In terms of an RPG, having a Real Time Combat concept tagged to is useful.  But attaching it to fighting games and FPS games is ridiculous.  So, I think it's just something that needs to be cleaned up and policed periodically.

Staff
#3 Posted by iAmJohn (6127 posts) -
@Marino said:
" I think the issue is more that it's a valid concept and people are adding unnecessary games to it.  In terms of an RPG, having a Real Time Combat concept tagged to is useful.  But attaching it to fighting games and FPS games is ridiculous.  So, I think it's just something that needs to be cleaned up and policed periodically. "
In that case, it should be renamed.  Real-Time Combat implies every game under the sun that isn't turn-based.  Something like "real-time battle system" or another name that implies that we're talking about RPGs specifically would be far more appropriate.
#4 Posted by DanielJW (4915 posts) -
@iAmJohn said:
" @Marino said:
" I think the issue is more that it's a valid concept and people are adding unnecessary games to it.  In terms of an RPG, having a Real Time Combat concept tagged to is useful.  But attaching it to fighting games and FPS games is ridiculous.  So, I think it's just something that needs to be cleaned up and policed periodically. "
In that case, it should be renamed.  Real-Time Combat implies every game under the sun that isn't turn-based.  Something like "real-time battle system" or another name that implies that we're talking about RPGs specifically would be far more appropriate. "
Both of these statements are valid. I'd lobby for a name change, and regular policing of the attached games. 
#5 Posted by Suicidal_SNiper (949 posts) -
@iAmJohn said:
" @Marino said:
" I think the issue is more that it's a valid concept and people are adding unnecessary games to it.  In terms of an RPG, having a Real Time Combat concept tagged to is useful.  But attaching it to fighting games and FPS games is ridiculous.  So, I think it's just something that needs to be cleaned up and policed periodically. "
In that case, it should be renamed.  Real-Time Combat implies every game under the sun that isn't turn-based.  Something like "real-time battle system" or another name that implies that we're talking about RPGs specifically would be far more appropriate. "
Agreed. A game like Army of Two should not be listed in this so it should be renamed or just cleaned up.
#6 Posted by Seeric (158 posts) -
@Suicidal_SNiper: I also agree that a rename would clear it up sufficiently and that a deletion is probably not necessary. I don't think "real-time battle system" would quite stop the issue because people would probably just claim that they thought 'battle system' applied to any game with combat. While it may be a bit awkward, renaming it "Real-Time Combat in RPG's" would make it very clear. 
 
Alternately, the deck's definition could be made more clear, such as by adding the sentence "This only applies to RPG's." at the end or changing the initial "Combat where..." into "Combat in RPG's where..." or something similar.
#7 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@Seeric said:
" @Suicidal_SNiper: I also agree that a rename would clear it up sufficiently and that a deletion is probably not necessary. I don't think "real-time battle system" would quite stop the issue because people would probably just claim that they thought 'battle system' applied to any game with combat. While it may be a bit awkward, renaming it "Real-Time Combat in RPG's" would make it very clear.   Alternately, the deck's definition could be made more clear, such as by adding the sentence "This only applies to RPG's." at the end or changing the initial "Combat where..." into "Combat in RPG's where..." or something similar. "
Denoting RPGs in the concept name is clunky and unnecessary.  Just denote that the concept is related to RPGs in the deck.
#8 Posted by Deathawk (280 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @Seeric said:
" @Suicidal_SNiper: I also agree that a rename would clear it up sufficiently and that a deletion is probably not necessary. I don't think "real-time battle system" would quite stop the issue because people would probably just claim that they thought 'battle system' applied to any game with combat. While it may be a bit awkward, renaming it "Real-Time Combat in RPG's" would make it very clear.   Alternately, the deck's definition could be made more clear, such as by adding the sentence "This only applies to RPG's." at the end or changing the initial "Combat where..." into "Combat in RPG's where..." or something similar. "
Denoting RPGs in the concept name is clunky and unnecessary.  Just denote that the concept is related to RPGs in the deck. "

I don't think that will do it, I think the genre name must be mentioned in the concept summary or else it will be abused again. After all when someone says "Real time combat" you don't think Fighting games, but they're listed there.
#9 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

Just cleaned out Medic again. Yes, people frequently misuse certain concepts and objects, but we shouldn't have to make it blindingly obvious in the title. Just check up on it every now and then to make sure it's still being used the way it's supposed to.

#10 Posted by TMThomsen (2078 posts) -
@LordAndrew: Why does that page even exist? Medics can be found in lots of games.
#11 Edited by TheHT (11513 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

" @Seeric said:

" @Suicidal_SNiper: I also agree that a rename would clear it up sufficiently and that a deletion is probably not necessary. I don't think "real-time battle system" would quite stop the issue because people would probably just claim that they thought 'battle system' applied to any game with combat. While it may be a bit awkward, renaming it "Real-Time Combat in RPG's" would make it very clear.   Alternately, the deck's definition could be made more clear, such as by adding the sentence "This only applies to RPG's." at the end or changing the initial "Combat where..." into "Combat in RPG's where..." or something similar. "
Denoting RPGs in the concept name is clunky and unnecessary.  Just denote that the concept is related to RPGs in the deck. "
This. No need for a name change, just this little clarification and then a quick clean up.
#12 Posted by natetodamax (19212 posts) -
@TMThomsen said:
" @LordAndrew: Why does that page even exist? Medics can be found in lots of games. "
It's about a specific class in one specific game. Check out the page
#13 Edited by TMThomsen (2078 posts) -
@natetodamax said:

" @TMThomsen said:

" @LordAndrew: Why does that page even exist? Medics can be found in lots of games. "

It's about a specific class in one specific game. Check out the page "
Yeah, but the page says that medics are a healer class in the Etrian Odyssey games. That doesn't sound like a specific class to me.
 
I would rather see it being added to a general Medic concept page, like i.e.. Shaman.
#14 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@TheHT said:
" @Hailinel said:

" @Seeric said:

" @Suicidal_SNiper: I also agree that a rename would clear it up sufficiently and that a deletion is probably not necessary. I don't think "real-time battle system" would quite stop the issue because people would probably just claim that they thought 'battle system' applied to any game with combat. While it may be a bit awkward, renaming it "Real-Time Combat in RPG's" would make it very clear.   Alternately, the deck's definition could be made more clear, such as by adding the sentence "This only applies to RPG's." at the end or changing the initial "Combat where..." into "Combat in RPG's where..." or something similar. "
Denoting RPGs in the concept name is clunky and unnecessary.  Just denote that the concept is related to RPGs in the deck. "
This. No need for a name change, just this little clarification and then a quick clean up. "
I've rewritten the deck and article to be more RPG specific.  I'm going to need help weeding out all of the games that shouldn't be attached, though.
#15 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
@TMThomsen said:
" I would rather see it being added to a general Medic concept page, like i.e.. Shaman. "
There is a generic medic concept: Healer. Games are regularly moved from the Medic page to that one.
#16 Posted by TheHT (11513 posts) -
@Hailinel: I'm going through removing (at least what I think is removing, I'm hitting that little red marker on the left of the game) the obvious non-candidates i.e. Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, etc.
#17 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

I've done a bit of removing too, although the new forced pagination means removals have to be done in significantly smaller increments than before. :(

#18 Posted by TheHT (11513 posts) -

There's about 200 cleared. It's surprising how many duplicates there were.

#19 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@TheHT said:
" There's about 200 cleared. It's surprising how many duplicates there were. "
It's a lot cleaner than it was, but there's still stragglers in there, I think.  I don't know enough about all of the games left to make calls one way or the other.
#20 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Another concept that is valid but will easily get ruined by people who don't understand the credentials...

#21 Posted by TheHT (11513 posts) -
@Hailinel: Same here, mostly the RTS games and the old stuff I didn't know about.
 
@Unknown_Pleasures: Wait, but it was already getting ruined by people putting first person shooters and fighting games in it. :\
#22 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Yeah true looks like it already has been ruined....oh well might as well just nuke it then.

#23 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
" Yeah true looks like it already has been ruined....oh well might as well just nuke it then. "
Or maybe you could actually help in the effort to fix it?
#24 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@Hailinel:  Nope....because people will just simply keep re-adding them its inevitiable...its pretty stupid to have a page that has to be policed regularly....that's just my opinion.
#25 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures: If we deleted concepts just because some people don't understand their purpose, then we'd lose a lot of valid concepts. A better idea is to inform any users you see misusing them so that they understand their purpose and won't continue misusing them in the future.
#26 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@LordAndrew:  Easier said then done....Even if you post guidelines in the overview people will still add games that shouldn't be included in the concept.
#27 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures: Yes, I know. But that doesn't mean that all pages with such problems need to be deleted.
#28 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @LordAndrew:  Easier said then done....Even if you post guidelines in the overview people will still add games that shouldn't be included in the concept. "
The same could be said of any concept.  I could add New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mega Man 10 to the First Person Perspective page despite how obviously wrong I'd be to do so.  That doesn't mean that the First Person Perspective page should be deleted.
#29 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @LordAndrew:  Easier said then done....Even if you post guidelines in the overview people will still add games that shouldn't be included in the concept. "
The same could be said of any concept.  I could add New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mega Man 10 to the First Person Perspective page despite how obviously wrong I'd be to do so.  That doesn't mean that the First Person Perspective page should be deleted. "
I would hope people would have a little more sense than to do that.
#30 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @LordAndrew:  Easier said then done....Even if you post guidelines in the overview people will still add games that shouldn't be included in the concept. "
The same could be said of any concept.  I could add New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mega Man 10 to the First Person Perspective page despite how obviously wrong I'd be to do so.  That doesn't mean that the First Person Perspective page should be deleted. "
I would hope people would have a little more sense than to do that. "
Such is the mentality of the troll.
#31 Posted by TheHT (11513 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @Hailinel:  Nope....because people will just simply keep re-adding them its inevitiable...its pretty stupid to have a page that has to be policed regularly....that's just my opinion. "
No, no, the detailing of the concept has been refined to keep such additions out! As it was before FPS and fighting games technically fit, but now they cannot. Even if they're submitted, the moderators couldn't after reading the concept accept it and those who have the power to alter it without supervision I imagine are responsible enough to not add anything that doesn't belong.
#32 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

I personally don't think Real-Time Combat needs to be removed, it just needs to be cleaned up and checked up on every so often to make sure the correct and relevant games are added too it.

#33 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@TheHT said:
" @Unknown_Pleasures said:
" @Hailinel:  Nope....because people will just simply keep re-adding them its inevitiable...its pretty stupid to have a page that has to be policed regularly....that's just my opinion. "
No, no, the detailing of the concept has been refined to keep such additions out! As it was before FPS and fighting games technically fit, but now they cannot. Even if they're submitted, the moderators couldn't after reading the concept accept it and those who have the power to alter it without supervision I imagine are responsible enough to not add anything that doesn't belong. "
After 1000 points you can live edit without having to go through a mod.