Talk:Rendition: Difference between revisions
From IFWiki
(Question about interpretation) |
(reply to Victor: go ahead and edit) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page currently says: "The game plays with the medium by forcing the player to confront their own complicity.". That seems a rather specific interpretation of the game, and one which I think a lot of people would disagree with. (I certainly do.) Is it appropriate to change this remark into a short comparison of interpretations? [[User:VictorGijsbers|VictorGijsbers]] 18:41, 16 November 2008 (PST) | This page currently says: "The game plays with the medium by forcing the player to confront their own complicity.". That seems a rather specific interpretation of the game, and one which I think a lot of people would disagree with. (I certainly do.) Is it appropriate to change this remark into a short comparison of interpretations? [[User:VictorGijsbers|VictorGijsbers]] 18:41, 16 November 2008 (PST) | ||
: I don't see why not. According to the page history, that blurb was added by User:Sushabye, whose only contributions to IFWiki have been to just this one game page. For all I know, Sushabye could be ''Rendition'''s author. However, even if so, the Notable Features section is supposed to (in essence) summarize points made by various reviewers of the game (or the sorts of points a reviewer might reasonably make), without being a full review itself, and preferably not just one person's take on it. So it seems reasonable to me, when the game in question is received in more than one way, to document a summary of those different points of view. The game's author may comment on his own game, but should (normally) confine his remarks to a special optional Author's Comments section. -- [[User:Dswxyz|David Welbourn]] 07:02, 17 November 2008 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 17 November 2008
This page currently says: "The game plays with the medium by forcing the player to confront their own complicity.". That seems a rather specific interpretation of the game, and one which I think a lot of people would disagree with. (I certainly do.) Is it appropriate to change this remark into a short comparison of interpretations? VictorGijsbers 18:41, 16 November 2008 (PST)
- I don't see why not. According to the page history, that blurb was added by User:Sushabye, whose only contributions to IFWiki have been to just this one game page. For all I know, Sushabye could be Rendition's author. However, even if so, the Notable Features section is supposed to (in essence) summarize points made by various reviewers of the game (or the sorts of points a reviewer might reasonably make), without being a full review itself, and preferably not just one person's take on it. So it seems reasonable to me, when the game in question is received in more than one way, to document a summary of those different points of view. The game's author may comment on his own game, but should (normally) confine his remarks to a special optional Author's Comments section. -- David Welbourn 07:02, 17 November 2008 (PST)