Talk:1337: Difference between revisions
From IFWiki
Mark-fullmer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Mark-fullmer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
You're right about the intent (i.e., "being part of the game"), and there is intentional metatextual slippage between the game and the game's story. If it doesn't conform to ifwiki's standard's, however, I'll certainly clean it up. Expect it redacted shortly. | You're right about the intent (i.e., "being part of the game"), and there is intentional metatextual slippage between the game and the game's story. If it doesn't conform to ifwiki's standard's, however, I'll certainly clean it up. Expect it redacted shortly. | ||
--[[User:Mark-fullmer]] 7:14 11 March 2010 (MST) | --[[User:Mark-fullmer|Mark Fullmer]] 7:14 11 March 2010 (MST) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:20, 11 March 2010
I'm sorry, but this page has to be fixed up. It does not follow our standard conventions about how to document a game. Currently, I can't tell what's about the game itself or what's about the story inside the game. I find the current version of this page confusing and misleading. For example:
- How can there be controversy about a brand-new game?
- If this is a ported game, what was it ported from? Why aren't the different versions listed?
- Let's be less cute about the author and company, please. If the author's name is a pseudonym, that's something to be said on the page about the author, not here. I don't like the attempt at using this page as being part of the game, if that's what it's trying to do.
-- David Welbourn 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right about the intent (i.e., "being part of the game"), and there is intentional metatextual slippage between the game and the game's story. If it doesn't conform to ifwiki's standard's, however, I'll certainly clean it up. Expect it redacted shortly.
--Mark Fullmer 7:14 11 March 2010 (MST)