Talk:List of Wii games

Archives
May 20, 2005 – December 13, 2005 14 December 2005 – 18 February 2007 Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 3 Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 4

Must the reference be free and online?

"A reference must be provided for all titles -- All items on this list should currently have at least one reference link."

Does this mean that if a game is confirmed in a print source or in a subscription-only online source, it does not belong in the article? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose not - but obviously it's more helpful if everyone can read the reference if they want to.HappyVR 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If a game was confirmed in writing then I can assure you that somewhere on the internet has something about it. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't add it, as long as you say where it comes from, and replace it with a reliable online link when one appears. -- VederJuda 02:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding sources from print material, even if a game is confirmed on the net or anywhere else. Add a reference to it anyways. Here's some more info about citations. That print material might even be a better source of information than most websites. Ceros 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Game Pages vs. Actual Articles

I think the actual announcement article is preferable to a game page (such as those from IGN that everybody always uses). I think an announcement article is more indicative of what is known about the game at the time of announcement and the nature of the announcement itself. And that's kind of what this list should do; accurately list which games currently exist for Wii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enbob89 (talk • contribs) 16:45, May 1, 2006 (UTC)

I think game pages are better because they link to all resources concerning the game: news, media, et al. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That thought had occurred to me. But I think the reference links for this article are only here to confirm that these games exist. A game page would be better suited for each game's own article. Also, game pages can sometimes be set up prematurely. Sometimes game pages are set up for games that are only speculated to exist. --enbob89 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Backwards Compatible Games

Some people have been adding old games to the list, going by the asumption that since the Revolution will have old NES/SNES/N64 games available for download, so these games will appear on the system (i.e. Donkey Kong Jr., Balloon Fight, Clu Clu Land, etc…). Should we add a note that says that only games developed for the Revolution directly should be on the list, and older games for download (even if they may be altered or fine-tuned in any way, are not considered Revolution games. -- VederJuda 14:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Older games are for older systems. Just look and the PlayStation series. PlayStation 3 plays PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games, yet none of those are counted as PS3 games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment about games based on movies on the list

I've noticed this on this list and other pages as well. People list the film article instead of the game article's redlink. If the article isn't made for the game yet, there is no reason to link to the film, period. It confuses people for one thing, and for another it makes it seem like the game has an article already. So just list the game as a redlink, and let it be. A film article shouldn't be on a video game list page. RobJ1981 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumored Games

Considering a game like "No End Soon" has been allowed to stay on this list of games, I readded NiGHTS into Dreams and Trama Center to the list, one of which was rumored in Weekly Famitsu, and another of which was confirmed by IGN as coming out. Both are currently listed as rumored games until an official announcement is made. Fro81 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think NiGHTS should be listed, there is no actual evidence to support that it is being developed, and that being listed here might just get people's hopes up. I think there should be more than just an article on a website about a rumor in a Japanese magazine to justify NiGHTS 2 being listed here. Gopherbassist 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Famitsu is notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia, and is one of the oldest magazines about videogames. However, I would not add "NiGHTS into Dreams", but instead, "unnamed xxxx project". -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the age of the magazine or it's having an article in Wikipedia have anything to do with the validity of a rumor, after all, it's still a rumor according to the magazine its self. Other than that, I agree.Gopherbassist 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I remind you about the general inclusion guideline: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. And more specifically: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. In other words, it doesn't matter if it is a rumour, as long as you can verify it with reliable sources. Can you verify it? Yes, it is in the magazine. Is it a reliable source? Yes, Famitsu is _the_ japanese bible of gaming. If you still don't trust Famitsu, we can use this IGN link as reference. Note how IGN treats the rumour with more respect just because it comes from Famitsu. Nothing wrong about your point of view, but if only "truth" could be allowed in Wikipedia, this would be Encyclopaedia Britannica ;-) -- ReyBrujo 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think truth has anything to do with it, and from what I read there is no proof that this game is NiGHTS, it said there was a flying clown. Plus, it is still a rumor. Now, I have no problem with it saying NiGHTS, but it needs to say some thing like "Unspecified _______ project, possibly NiGHTS."Gopherbassist 04:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Untitled games section

Does this need to exist? The section is one long bulleted and cluttered list. Yes, games are coming out and don't have names: but it's not that important to have a huge list of untitled games. The article does need to be complete as possible: but the section is a mess and certainly doesn't help much (in my opinion at least). RobJ1981 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it helps. Knowing which developers are making Wii games is useful, isn't it? --enbob89 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates

I think release dates are worth mentioning.

Agreed, 100%, and regional sorting. I don't care about when Naruto is coming out in Japan. That gives me no way to determine when it is coming out here, and is information that should be sorted out of my way... just like for a japanese-based reader, information about when Naruto is releasing in the US is useless and should be sorted out of his way. JudgeX 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources for released games

Are sources for released games really necessary? I completely understand why we have them for when the games are in development, but after a point doesn't it become common knowledge enough that they don't need it? It's like citing a source that Harrison Ford was in Star Wars. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Honestly I don't think it needs its own box within the table in any case. K1Bond007 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if a game has been released, a source isn't so necessary. But a source column definitely is necessary now considering the vast majority of the games on the list are unreleased and every day there are clowns listing fake games. But if we do eliminate sources for released games, I'd rather not have an empty source box. Could we just shade those source boxes in black? --enbob89 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Would would that look like? Perhaps the standard could be to remove confirmation links for games that already are released and have their own article? -- Exitmoose 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PRICE of the games

I would like to know the price of the games (Specially the Zelda one and the Red Steel one), thanks.

Game prices vary from region to region, and more importantly, over time. Furthermore, there are sales and bundles that further complicate pricing. As such, they can be documented for each game on its respective page, but to put all of those details on this list would simply clutter everything up. I suggest we do not add this information to this page. — Aielyn 06:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization (Add Online Enabled Game Category?)

It would probably be a good idea to add another category to the list for games that are online in some capacity. Although since 'O' is currently in use maybe 'I' should be used for 'Intenet Enabled,' or something of that nature? ITZKooPA 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the number of players would be handy here rather than having to load each game's Wikipedia entry. Krisjohn 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Before we add any more categories, the page should be redesigned with a more organized layout, if anyone can come up with one. --enbob89 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Add "Aspect Ratio", "Resolution", and "Controller" columns

I think the list of games should add the columns "Aspect Ratio" and "Resolution" to the list of columns. Some games are made in 16x9, some 4x3 and the same goes for 480i/480p. Adding these two columns would make it easy to see what each game offers.

I also think it would be good to add a column that describes the number of controllers necessary for each game. The format could be wiimote/nunchuck/classic where 4/4/0 would say that 4 wiimotes, 4 nunchucks, and 0 classic controllers are required. Ajwillys 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this list is just to list which games exist. Details should be put in the games' respective articles or in a Comparison of Wii Games article. I feel like the online column is out of place too. --enbob89 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Compare List of PlayStation 3 games or List of Xbox 360 games or List of GameCube games, all of which have a similar format. This list is already on the verge of being cluttered with too much information. Title, Developer, Publisher, Release Date, and Region are more than enough. -- Exitmoose 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've successfully removed the online column without screwing up the entire page. I think a good alternative would be a List of Online Wii Games. Such an article would list all of the online games as well as useful information like how many players and WiiConnect24 usage. Just seems more organized and practical to me.--enbob89 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Exclusive list/table

Would it be a good idea to make a separate page for wii exclusives?

I would happily make one if I get the go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bfscr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I do not believe that a separate Wii-exclusive games is warranted; the idea of this list, or so it appears, is to offer a unifying list of Wii games, a one-stop shop. Additionally, the creation of a separate page can be confusing to casual Wikipedia browsers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.225.103 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

List of Virtual Boy games table format.

The List of Virtual Boy games is a featured list on Wikipedia. It happens to be a list of console games for a particular console. I think since it's a featured list, this should be the baseline for all other lists of console games. The List of Nintendo 64 games is setup in a similar way. I've done some work for the List of PlayStation 1 games to make it look similar as well. Here's my question.

Should this be the standard on Wikipedia for lists of games for every console? Ceros 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that such a format may be suitable, but I can think of at least one modification I would make to the format to suit the Wii - namely, I would add a column listing the control setup (ie/ Wiimote only, Wiimote+nunchaku, Dual-Wiimote, Classic Controller, GameCube Controller, etc). However, I think we should wait until launch before modifying it, as it is a big task.

This seems unnecessary to me. As Ceros mentions, too much information would defeat the purpose of the "list". -- Exitmoose 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would suggest that games that have been released be marked as such in some way, and the link proving its existence removed (such proof can be found via the game's wikipedia article, once the game has been released). — Aielyn 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought other details besides who, what, when, and where belonged in another table. You could name this table Comparison of Wii games. Someone at the talk page for playstation 3 games suggested there be a column for ps3 exclusives. I said that would be best placed in a table on it's own in which there could be all kinds of details such as first party, third party, 1080p, etc. I also mentioned the Comparison of audio codecs table which is the idea I have for this seperate page. Ceros 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The list already borders on containing too much information. Something like the List of Virtual Boy games seems like a great way to structure the list, and will get rid of the awkward parenthesis. -- Exitmoose 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Format as a table

Wouldn't it make it easier to view if the titles were listed as a table (preferably a sortable one)? There could be different columns in the title to denote things such as whether the games are online-capable, first party, etc., and maybe some room for notes if so desired. I myself want to see what unreleased Wii games there are; it's hard to do this when the games are grouped alphabetically. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is overdue for a reformatting. Table sounds nice. --enbob89 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Title	Launch	Released	Exclusive	Online
Battalion Wars 2	N	N	Y	Y
Elebits	Y	Y	Y	N

How's that? 76.5.18.0 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Except the released column should specify the regions in which the game has been released, not just a check or an x. So it should say US, EU, JP or AU (or any combination of those). There should be a column for the source link too.--enbob89 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Title	Released	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	Online	Source
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption	N	Retro Studios	Nintendo	Y	?	Joystiq
Elebits (L)	JP NA	Konami	Konami	Y	N	IGN
100 Bullets (C)(?)	N	TBA	D3 Publisher	N	?	IGN

Let me "kick this up a notch" BAM! Got rid of launches, there would be tons of red x's years from now. FMF|contact 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, but I think we should lose the party column. I feel like it's unnecessary. How about publisher/developer columns instead? Also, I think there should be a separate table for untitled games. Just more organized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enbob89 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Updated table, is that fine or should developer/publisher be separated? This chart just covers those that actually have titles. Someone can work on that later - I just want to focus on this and get it up. FMF|contact 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be separate only because there can be multiple developers on one game and having a developer column would make it more organized. Make that change and put it up. It looks great. Also, games that are tweaked versions of other games (Madden, Call of Duty 3) don't count as exclusives. Only games that are completely exclusive to Wii count. --enbob89 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, about the legends. Those not already covered I have added, also I have a urge to switch the legends of online to (O) and other consoles to (C). FMF|contact 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

With the new format we don't need any of the tags, except maybe the launch tag. There are online, publisher and exclusive columns, so we don't need the tags at all. They would only be redundant clutter. --enbob89 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I was considering purchasing a Wii and was hoping Wikipedia would have a good list of available games for me to research before buying. Unfortunately, this list of games sucks. The tables need to be separated by regional availability AND actual availability. For each region, planned games should have a table, and available games should have a table. It's not hard... but I can tell you what's retarded... having to search through a list of 50+ games for 10 games that are actually available. JudgeX 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a few things you said don't really make sense to me. What do you mean by "actual availability"? And do you mean to say that there should be a separate list of planned games for each region? Most games will become available in all regions; listing them four times (once for each region) would be pointless. While the current format isn't perfect, I wouldn't say it "sucks".

No, man, it sucks. Never before have I seen a list of planned titles sum itself up to be so useless. Fact is, average readers don't care about the release dates in Japan, Europe, etc if they are from the United States (the converse is true as well). If they do care about the release date other than for the region that they reside in, they can go to that region's planned releases. Saying that "most games" will make it to EU or US is certainly true, but only by a narrow margin... there are tons of Japan-centric games for every other nintendo system that never saw the light of day here, pending translation and or import.

By "actual availability", I meant there needs to be an updated list where a user can go to quickly see what titles should be available at the local distributor without having to skim through "upcoming" titles. This would be more useful to people researching the Wii... while planned releases can be seperate completely. It really only requires 3 tables, ordered properly. I propose the following:

Table 1: Region 1 Titles available via retail at time of edit sorted alphabetically, sub-section: upcoming titles with release dates.

Table 2: Region 2 Titles available via retail at time of edit sorted alphabetically, sub-section: upcoming titles with release dates.

And so on and so forth. This allows an extra tier of usefulness in that it includes the release dates for each region for the second part of each table... Imagine the much improved look and feel of being able to go "what all titles are available on Wii... oh, there they are, all 35 of them... and here's the article about this game... awesome." and then being like "I heard Domino Rally was coming out on the Wii, let me check... *scroll down* ... ooh, here it is, April 14. That's awesome." Currently, when you come and want to see what all titles are available, you'd better come ready to look for green checkmarks and copy out the title name into notepad or something if you want to see a list of what you can get right now... as this is a terrible mish-mash of crap... even without the added research of getting an actual release date for each game for each region, it would be HUGELY beneficial to break it up like this. I'm not saying the article is completely without use... I'm just saying it could use serious logical reworking... as I don't know of many people in any region other than Japan that care at all about "Noumiso Konekone Puzzle Takoron", which would almost undoubtedly be retitled for release here in the US anyway...making that game title completely worthless for EU and US readers, and putting yet another time-wasting and confounding entry into the overly humongous table. JudgeX 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the four table idea (North America, Japan, Europe, Australia), but it would make this article way too long as we'd be listing the same games for each table. If we did that, I think each table would be a separate article. Also, a lot of games are regionally ambiguous - nobody is really sure about the regions in which they'll come out. Another thing is, we don't know anything about retail availability, so it'll be released and unreleased. --enbob89 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would be cool too. Honestly I'd love to see someone step up and make the table more useful. I would but i don't have time, and the current table is absolutely useless. I've tried to use it 2 or 3 times now but cannot deal with sifting through that many "theoretically one day available to you" games. I applaud the original work for being thorough and it is of ultimate use, but, without better formatting, it fails. Honestly this would be about perfect if we could use a datagrid here on wikipedia ;). Then we could just sort by columns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JudgeX (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

---

How about this, separate the current table into two tables: one for released games and one for unreleased games. The former will specify regional availability and the latter will look like the existing format except no "released" column. --enbob89 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can almost agree with this, but like I said, I would like for users to be able to see a list of games that they can get... so, if you sorted it by region and then alphabet for released games, that'd be perfect for me, but without that sorting you still have like 30 games that are unvailable to you appearing in a list of 55 games total, which means you're wasting like 50% of your time... I'm not nitpicking here, I just can't find a solid, currently updated list of games that I can actually go look for in my local market, and that's 1) ridiculous, 2) bad for nintendo, 3) bad for me... because without a list to go on, I simply don't have time to browse 5 or 6 stores every week for new games. Wikipedia is the perfect place for game availability lists because of the ease of updating and the readily accessible links to NPOV wiki articles about the games and external reviews. JudgeX 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the need for the red "X" and the green check mark images? Wouldn't a simple "Yes" or "No" suffice for the "Exclusive" and "Online" catagories, and a listing of the regions a game is released in for the "Released" catagory (with a simple "No" for unreleased games)? I'm fairly certain that having so many images on the page makes it significantly bigger (if they don't make the pages bigger though, you might as well disregard this comment). - Ecksem Diem 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Personally, I think the list needs to be overhauled simply because it is useless as a source of information. Unless you already know what title you are looking for it is very hard to find such information as 'what has been released in my region' or 'what exclusives does the system have'. A sortable list would be a very strong solution to this. I spent a few minutes and came up with this. I think that there could be some changes (dates for release instead of Y/N?), but I think it shows the idea. I used the 0-9 and A sections of the current games to fill it up. What do people think? If anyone wants to play around with he idea, I have it up in my user space. Telvin 3d 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	AU	EU	JP	NA	Source
100 Bullets	D3 Publisher	D3 Publisher	No	No	No	No	No	Go Nintendo
Alien Syndrome	Totally Games	Sega	No	No	No	No	No	Sega
Alive		Ubisoft	No	No	No	No	No	Go Nintendo
Animal Crossing (Wii)	Nintendo EAD	Nintendo	Yes	No	No	No	No	Go Nintendo
The Ant Bully	Artificial Mind and Movement	Midway	No	No	No	No	Yes	Midway
Avatar: The Last Airbender	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	THQ

I think Telvin's table is the on the right track in terms of making this list the most informative and presentable. I've taken his table and modified it somewhat, a format which I believe is the best:

Title	Online	Developer	Publisher	Japan	Europe	North America
100 Bullets	No	D3 Publisher	D3 Publisher	TBA		Q3 2007
Alien Syndrome	No	Totally Games	Sega		Q2 2007	2007-06-30June 30, 2007
Alive	No	TBA	Ubisoft		TBA	TBA
Animal Crossing (Wii)	Yes	Nintendo EAD	Nintendo	TBA	TBA	TBA
Ant Bully, The	No	Artificial Mind and Movement	Midway		2007-03-02March 2, 2007	2006-12-11December 11, 2006
Avatar: The Last Airbender	No	THQ Studio Australia	THQ		2007-02-09February 9, 2007	2006-11-19November 19, 2006

I look forward to your comments, and if nobody raises any objections I will begin reformatting the current list into the one presented in a few days. It's clear that this list needs an overhaul, and I figure that we might as well start doing it. Digiwrld1 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite good! The "Developer" and "Publisher" columns should come first, as they are more important IMHO, and an "Exclusive" column might be neat too, but otherwise I really like it. --Conti|✉ 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did with it. I agree that the dates in the release column are better. Other than that, I am curious why Australia is no longer part of the list? As far as I know, they get release dates that are separate from any of the other regions. If I am wrong in this please correct me. Also, there needs to be a 'source' column. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which mean everything needs to be referenced. In theory, we could put all the references at the bottom of the page, but with at least one reference per entry that list would be at least as long as the games list itself, not to mention keeping track of it would be a nightmare. It is far easier and cleaner to keep the reference as part of the entry for the game. Those two entries are more important in my eyes than either an 'exclusive' column or an 'online' column. Either of those things could be found in the game's own page, where as 'source' and 'Australia' are directly relevant to the list itself. Telvin 3d 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus on other "List of games"-lists is, but we usually use footnotes to provide the sources, and I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't do that here, too, as it would save one additional column. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Cleanup

I have taken the liberty to delete topics within this Talk page that were no longer relevant, (i.e. Rumored Games, Addition of Games leading up to the launch of the Wii). I read through each of these discussions to ensure that the topic can be safely deleted and is indeed unnecessary now. Additionally, I arranged the topics in a manner which organizes similar topics together (i.e. Intro/FAQ at the topic, discussion of tables and organizations next). I hope the information presented here can be more accessible this way. (This particular topic can be deleted as well, but please leave it for a little while so that users can know what happened to the Talk Page). -Digiwrld1 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You should paste the deleted sections to Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 2. — Quin 08:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved discussions of formatting to the bottom as these same to be the most important/pressing. I also moved deleted topics to the the Archive 2 link. -Digiwrld1 09:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)