This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&action=history&limit=8&offset=20241210190612001 @Cold Season

I have invited NPOVN and ORN to help resolve the issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution to SCMP, a newspaper of record well-known to be reliable, unDuely casts doubt onto the claim. That Hero bought and sold their stake is factual information without any reason for dispute; there's no speculation by SCMP regarding the relationship. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we have a comment directly from Hero Games, which leaves the status of the relation open. It is not to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn’t that they bought and sold their stake be stated in Wikivoice? Why should we doubt that? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to respond to this. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is always good. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there’s a reason to cast doubt and not use Wikivoice. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. We attribute far less and use wikivoice far more than we should across the project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have policies or guidelines to support your position? Wikipedia:Wikivoice—part of NPOV—says:

* Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the fact that the CEO couldn't comment on a claim invalidates the claim, which they stated themselves in their financial reports that are required to be true statements, now with the endorsement of a newspaper of record.

I cited the policy to only show that there is consensus that attribution automatically casts doubt, and nothing else. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we can't state things in wiki-voice based off any one single source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Are you saying we can't say Game Science released the mobile games 100 Heroes and Art of War: Red Tides before they started the development of Black Myth: Wukong in 2018. either? The part of WP:Wikivoice I quoted says Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. You might be able to dispute whether that Hero Games bought and then sold their stake is an uncontroversial statement, but you can't dispute that in-text attribution on top of inline citation is casting doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious and tendentuous. We don't know what sources, if any, SCMP used and the company did not confirm the acquisition when asked about it. Wikipedia cannot speculate why but we can at least attribute the dubious claim. I've said my piece. Include the attribution. Full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in fact, said that its sources were the company's own annual financial reports obtained through Tianyancha. The information reported is consistent with circulating screenshots of the report and Chinese news reports. Any of us can obtain the report ourselves from Tianyancha if we have a Chinese phone number. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other companies you mentioned, we have specific quotes from specific sources that connect the controversy to the game's launch. I specifically added a quote from PC Gamer in the citation for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not. What you are trying is to broaden the scope of a controversy. A + B = C. There is a controversy resulting from the allegations about Game Science + Game Science released a game = You conflating the two separate notions talked about together. The basis of the controversy is the company, not the game. All you quoted is an opinion by the author that the game's launch is less celebratory. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not, the sources—reliable sources that are not opinion pieces or quotes—are, therefore we include it. Here’s the quote I added into the citation:

what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy that studio GameScience seems unwilling to address, including in a recent interview with PC Gamer.

Here’s quotes from other sources:

This beautiful-looking action game is based on Journey to the West, the great Chinese novel – but its own journey to release has hit a bump in the road
— The Guardian

the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders
— other PCGamer article cited

Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the articles, all those sources directly attribute the controversy to the company, and do not attribute it to the game, which you try to do. The controversies of Ubisoft does not translate to their games, the controversies of Blizzard Entertainment does not translate to their games, et cetera. You simply try to misrepresent sources, which all attribute the controversial element to the company. --Cold Season (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the articles, and the quotes literally say it disturbed the game's launch. Like I said, Ubisoft and Blizzard do not have articles that say a company controversy disrupted a game's launch, and if there are, we should add them.
Also, we've been debating "and added controversy to the game's launch", not that the allegations are somehow not within the company. Those are two things not to be conflated. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you read them. Then, how about you stop misrepresenting the sources by trying to falsely broaden the controversy.

Yet despite all of this background, there’s nothing really objectionable in the game itself.
— Vox

--Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody claimed that the allegations were within the game. I've been claiming since the beginning that these sources clearly support that the allegation caused controversy around the game's launch, which is the context within all of these reports: that the allegations became prominent during the game's promotion, which the controversy hurt. Even the title of the article you just quoted is The storm of controversy around Black Myth: Wukong, explained. That is context that absolutely should not be omitted. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly repeating yourself and arguing for your OR. Again, A + B = C. There is a controversy resulting from the allegations about Game Science + Game Science released a game = You conflating the two separate notions talked about together to make this about their games. You know what's around the game? The company, the actual subject of the controversy. --Cold Season (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s directly stated in the sources, so it’s not OR. You still have not explained how I am misrepresenting the sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a pattern. I keep explaining, and you keep not acknowledging it. The same way when User:FMSky brought it up [1] (I actually didn't notice that you have pushed for your misrepresentation before). Furthermore, don't think I've not noticed you removing cited content too, including how the IGN poll got rigged, Sweet Baby Inc's relation to this, and the co-author Khee Hoon Chan of the IGN allegation piece calling for piracy of their games; I'll have a look at that. --Cold Season (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I pinged Sky in my revert, and if he had any problems with it, he would have brought them up. (Sky, please tell me if I am putting words in your mouth.) If you think the quotes I raised still don’t support the link to disrupting the game’s launch, explain how!
About the “removing cited content”: I would heavily doubt that you somehow don’t know about my edits given Simon’s ping to the existing discussion about this unrelated issue above, and I have many more doubts to raise if you want to bring that up again. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you continuing to do the "act oblivious" spiel? Like you do with the sources. I literally said that I noticed you removing sourced content and will definitely be revisiting it. I said that I did not notice someone (before me) also reverting your edit for this particular content in discussion and you undoing it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how this addresses anything in my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up. I'm not going to humor your cycle of me continuously explaining the same thing and you asking for it again. This is a repeat of what happened in the section below, where you kept not acknowledging it (until you couldn't as someone came in to repeat it); I'm not going to humor this nonsense.--Cold Season (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novellasyes Perhaps your valuable insight can let me see what I missed again? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu. Here is what I think you are missing. It is true that at the time of the launch of the game, the company was experiencing a controversy because of some allegations about sexism. It is also the case that someone associated with the company took note of the not-surprising fact that employees of the company, at the time of the launch, instead of feeling unalloyed glee and celebration due to the game's successful launch, were also feeling some bad vibes, as surely one would, because of the entirely separate and independent event of the sexism allegations. It harshed their mellow, so to speak. Very understandable. So two events happened around the same time: The company had to deal with sexism allegations. Right around, the same time, it was experiencing the successful launch of the game. "The game" and whether or not it was successful and had a successful launch is not the same thing as the group of people who work at the company. The way you have been wanting to write the sentence ties "the successful launch of the game", which is its own independent and celebration-worthy event, to a separate event that happened at around the same time. What the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you are disagreeing with you about is they do not want any language that implies that the game itself, or its launch, was dirtied up by the allegations. It wasn't. The mood of people who worked in the corporate office was dirtied up. The game wasn't.Novellasyes (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novellasyes I agree that I would be in the wrong if I'm arguing this from a source saying there were allegations and a source saying the game's launch happened at the same time. (In fact, it wasn't even around the same time; it released a year later.)Thing is, I'm not concluding this by myself. The sources directly say that it caused controversy over the game. This source says the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders. I'm adding a piece of information directly stated by a reliable source. How would you prefer I add this sentence from that source into this article? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu. How many RSes offered that type of comment? If it's only the one, I'd be hesitant to rely on that as a DUE fact about the game. I have never played a video game or read any of these publications so take my thoughts for what they are worth (possibly nothing). But there are three things. (1) There is the actual game. Imagine handing the game in a box with no identifying marks as to which studio created it to a variety of reviewers and players; they are asked to review it without any knowledge of where the game came from. This would be like blind peer review in scholarly publications -- the reviewers are supposed to review papers without knowing who wrote the papers. The idea here would be for game reviewers and players to report out their perceptions of what it is like to play the game, with any possible biases removed from their perceptions of the game that might arise from knowing which studio put it out. (2) There are the events surrounding the launch of the game. According to that very interesting PCGamer's review you linked to, the company when it released the game for review put a lot of hilarious (to me) conditions on what streamers who were going to review the game could or couldn't say about the game. That's pretty entertaining and it definitely happened and it's not surprising that a professional reviewer writing for PC Gamer would point out that this happened in all its goofy gloriousness. Imagining this happening in a different industry, it would be as if a movie producer sent out review copies of a movie and included with the review copies a list of items that the reviewers were not allowed to write about, when reviewing the movie. Let's say that the lead actor had recently been accused of multiple episodes of sexually inappropriate behavior, and the movie studio said to reviewers, "You can review this movie but you're not allowed to mention 'nudity, feminist propaganda, fetishization, and other content that instigates negative discourse'. LOL is what all the reviewers would think if they got past being outraged at the very idea of such a presumptuous request. (3) There's the company that released the game and also set the instructions for what the reviewers were and were not supposed to talk about when reviewing the game, and the fact that the company had been accused to sexism emanating from its senior leadership team. When this PC Games reviewer uses the phrase "controversy over the game", I think what the reviewer is talking about is (2): The goofiness of the way the company behaved when it sent the game out for review. He doesn't appear to be referring to the game itself, or (1). Novellasyes (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novellasyes There’s a lot of quotes from many different sources I have provided above in green.
I think you’re describing that I have a wording issue that sounds like the controversy is some sort of property of the game itself, so would you be amenable to me restoring my edit but with “around” instead of “to”, i.e. and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu. Since this article is primarily about the company (and not so much the game and its properties), I think it would be legitimate to say something along the following lines, "When Game Science released [the game] to [the streamer community -- if that's the right way to describe those folks], it issued instructions saying that streamers must not include "nudity, feminist propaganda, fetishization, and other content that instigates negative discourse." The reviewer for PC Gamer described this expectation as 'bonkers'. Other reviewers also took note of the unusual demand.[adding several other citations].Novellasyes (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novellasyes I don't intend to include the part about streamer guidelines. It feels too far-removed from the company, and there's far more things to cover about the game. I only want to include the context that the controversy about the company impacted the game's launch. Do you have objections to and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that. It is still you trying to broaden the scope of the controversy. What's around? Even your vague wording of "around" tiptoes on the fact that the subject of controversy is directly the company. --Cold Season (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to add that the subject of the controversy is the game. I'm trying to add that the controversy has impacted the game's launch, as sources have said again and again. I don't see how this wording would imply that the game caused the controversy in any way.
Please, look at the quotes I have provided near the very start of this section—that say the company's controversy has spilled over and affected the game's launch—and tell me why they don't say that it has not become the game's controversy in the public eye. I know the controversy is about the company, not the game, as you have said repeatedly, which is not what I'm arguing. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Dino Ying conveys as little information as Game Science's decline statement ("Game Science is focused on the demo at this time and will only answer questions related to gameplay.") does, but with more puffery. Even after your last edit, using it instead of a summary unnecessary glorifies Game Science's position. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it reports on Game Science's attitude toward it. Again, you are conflating two things: First, Game Science declining to respond is one thing. Second, Game Science trying not get distracted with it is another. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer secondary sources over primary where possible. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree, I guess I'm fine with this now that the quote has been replaced with a neutral summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you not fine with it. Because like above, you are still trying to misrepresent sources [2]. Let me explain this simpler for you about how you are doing synthesis (WP:SYNTH) since you do not understand:

A= Game Science declined to address questions about the allegations.

B= Hero Games' Dino Ying commented that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it

C (your rewording/conclusion)= Game Science declined to address questions about the allegations, which Hero Games's CEO explained as a move to avoid distraction.

You just connected A + B to imply that A happens because of B. This is your unfounded conclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no new conclusion in C, therefore it’s not Synth. Even if it were Synth, being the same or separate would not change that one bit. See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a matter of grammar. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you say that this is about "grammar" (it is not) says enough about the fact that you refuse to acknowledge how you are changing the meaning of content (as I've dissected above with the ABCs laid out), to imply a conclusion that is not supported by the sources. Are we doing this? I keep explaining, and you keep not acknowledging it? Like above. --Cold Season (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by my not acknowledging. I have asked you to explain what new conclusion not previously in the individual statements has been generated (and how the generation was only erected after the merging of grammatical sentence structure), and that requires me to have read and understood your ABCs. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. I'm not going to humor your cycle of me continuously explaining the same thing (which I've even bolded out to make it even more clearer) and you not acknowledging it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen your C, and am asking you to state what new thing/logical synthesis not covered individually in A or B is present. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree if you like, I suppose, but please read WP:SECONDARY. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a vase or two faces?. I read this material through several times. On some readings, what Aaron Liu is saying seems obviously right and then I'd read it again and what Cold Season is saying seems obviously right. On final reflection, I'm going with Cold Season. Here's why. The CEO did say that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it (where "it" is the controversy and conversation about sexism). It's a fact that the CEO said that. It's also a fact that the company (Game Science) has declined to address questions about the allegations. Why did the CEO say that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it? He didn't say why that is. He just said "we try not to get distracted with it". The CEO also did not connect his preference about not wanting to get distracted with the earlier fact that the company has declined to comment on the imbroglio. You might think, "Well, obviously, if the company is refusing to comment, and the CEO is saying something that means "our team works hard to not be distracted by all of this", that these two statements must be related. But that's not the case. The team could work hard to not be distracted by all of it -- and it could have still said something to the press about it, if the company thought that talking to the press was the best strategy for reducing (instead of amplifying) the conversation; they might have thought that was the best way to avoid being distracted. My two cents. However, FWIW, there's a very fine line between these two interpretations. Novellasyes (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the connection that Cold Season sees, I get it now. He did actually explain himself in a short sentence, and you’re right as to what I thought that made me skip over it. While the current status quo on this issue (preferred by Cold Season) has iffy flow, I don’t see a better way to structure it, so I guess I’m fine with it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found a way to avoid the awkward “it”, with the additional benefit of not assuming that “distractions” refers to just these allegations. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Game Science's sexism controversy added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch, and should this information be appended to the first sentence of the paragraph that starts with "In 2023, IGN released a report"? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. As I have argued above, numerous sources make this inference:

  what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy that studio GameScience seems unwilling to address, including in a recent interview with PC Gamer.
  — PC Gamer, "We asked Black Myth: Wukong's developer about the controversy over its founders' past sexist remarks, but GameScience's only reply was 'No comment'"

  This beautiful-looking action game is based on Journey to the West, the great Chinese novel – but its own journey to release has hit a bump in the road
  — The Guardian, "Black Myth: Wukong – the summer’s most exciting, and most controversial, video game"

  In the midst of the pre-release praise that Black Myth: Wukong enjoyed from its previews, IGN published a disturbing expose about the game's Chinese studio, Game Science.
  — Distractify, "Controversy Hangs Over 'Black Myth: Wukong' and Its Studio Amidst Critical and Commercial Success"

  While the new product was being opened up for review by western media, the company’s refusal to comment on the executive’s moral values sparked the first signs of controversy

  The noise is mostly plaudits for the quality of the game’s action, design and playability, which has been amplified by Chinese state media. But that has been dampened somewhat by clumsy censorship and attempts to sweep aside allegations of sexism at the company that developed “Wukong.”
  — Variety, "Chinese Game ‘Black Myth: Wukong’ Is an Instant Global Hit, Attracting Great Reviews, Praise at Home and Controversy Abroad"

  Here's more sources that link the controversy to the game (albeit not the launch):

  controversy over the game reminded her of the toxic environment she experienced as a woman in the game industry.
  — AP News, "A blockbuster Chinese video game sparks debate on sexism in the nation’s gaming industry

  Even the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post took issue with the workplace sexism that may have undermined the game.
  — Vox, "The storm of controversy around Black Myth: Wukong, explained"

  the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders
  — PC Gamer, "Black Myth: Wukong has some bonkers streamer guidelines about not using the game to spread 'feminist propaganda' or discuss anything about China"

  Both the game and its developer are in a fair bit of hot water for how they’ve treated women in the past.

  Black Myth: Wukong releases on August 20, 2024, but we’d hope these horrible acts of misogyny from the company would make gamers reconsider giving them money
  — The Mary Sue, "‘Black Myth: Wukong’ Is One of 2024’s Most Anticipated Games—and One of the Most Controversial"

  There's also a slightly questionable connection in another Mary Sue article, which summarizes the sexism controversy and says This controversy continued well into Wukong’s launch on August 20, 2024. to start a paragraph about the separate streaming controversy (rightfully covered only in the game's article).
  I think that if we can closely paraphrase the sentence I quoted from the first source, we should be able to add "and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch" into the article. Alternate wording suggestions that still include this critical historical context are welcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that the controversy itself is unrelated to the game's content. As I have reaffirmed in my replies above, I am not saying that the game's content caused the controversy. I believe these sources clearly link the controversy to impacting the launch. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, you are still trying to broaden the scope of a controversy, trying to make it about the game. --Cold Season (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you have indeed repeated in the section above, while I have repeatedly asked you why my quotes don't do that. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're constantly not acknowledging my comments again (Sealioning). I've already explained how every one of your quoted articles relates the controversy back to the company. How does a game illustrate an alleged sexist environment? It doesn't, since the controversy is about the company. --Cold Season (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeated above, you’ve only clearly explained how (the sources say) the controversy is about the company’s behavior, not how the sources did not say the controversy about the company impacted the game. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am done now, because you are constantly trying to sealion and only made this RFC (see [3]) because I stopped humoring the same conduct of yours in the previous discussion (located above the RFC). In addition, similarly to what user Simonm223 said [4] about your conduct above, this is borderline disruptive. I have laid out my arguments for others to read (in this RFC and the section above the RFC), how the controversy including its impact relates back to the company. --Cold Season (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still cannot tell the difference between "caused by"/"about" and "impact on", then I guess you and I are indeed done here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said above, Ubisoft doesn't have these sources that link controversy to games. However, Blizzard has (admittedly a lot more), and thus the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard#Players and streamers section covers the controversy's impact on games in depth. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to misrepresent boycotts against a company. That's where the impact lies. --Cold Season (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. The section clearly refers to the impact on Blizzard's games. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem. You keep trying to widen the scope of controversies that's about companies, trying to make it about the games itself while it is not. --Cold Season (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t see how the section clearly refers to the impact on their games, if you can’t see how the quotes I gave clearly refer to the impact on the game’s launch, then I have no doubt you’ll never change your mind. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I first want to preface that the controversy is about the alleged sexism by company figures. This is not disputed.

Firstly, the controversy is about the company. All sources on this topic explicitly discuss the alleged sexism by company figures as the controversy. Every source goes back to the controversy pointing to the company, every time, even in the quotes above. This is not a controversy about the game or its content, as none of the sources actually describe how the game is controversial. In fact, sources say that the issue is not the game itself. This is nothing more than an effort by user Aaron Liu to broaden the scope of the controversy.

Yet despite all of this background, there’s nothing really objectionable in the game itself.
— Vox

Secondly, this is also an attempt to mix two separate events occurring roughly in the same period: One event is the release of a game and the other event is the allegations made toward company figures (that is, the controversy). These are distinct but parallel things. Even the title of this RFC hints at that.

Thirdly, if the scope of controversies about a company can be widened to falsely include their products, then the same can easily be applied other companies with controversies such as Ubisoft, Blizzard Entertainment, and others, where we can list off their games in their controversy section. It is not, because that is ridiculous. That's a precedent too, which if applied here, deserves a discussion on whether it should be applied project-wide: Whether every games company controversy should translate to their games. A ridiculous notion.

Fourthly, what does "around" mean in user Aaron Liu's content that he wants to add? That wording is intentionally ambiguous. The games happen to be in the vicinity of the actual subject of controversy. It refers directly to the company, the actual subject of the controversy. The company is embroiled into a controversy; that's what it means. Yet, user Aaron Liu is trying to create this distant, weak, and indirect relation, just because the company is facing a controversy but also happens to make games. --Cold Season (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The article shouldn't say or imply that the corporate shenanigans impacted the views that people have about the game itself. People (reviewers especially) could have decided that elements of the game itself mirrored the company's sexism, somehow or other. Reviewers did not conclude or say that. It is the case that the company was (apparently credibly) accused of sexism, and it also seems to inconvertibly be the case that the company gave out very inane and laughable instructions to reviewers of the game trying to forbid them from talking about certain things when reviewing the game. However, neither of those things impacted how people think about, write about, or experience the actual game and game play. Novellasyes (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on why these sources don't say that the game is viewed as marred by the company's controversy? You also see IGN linking the lack of female elements in "About Our Report from Last Year" anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game wasn't even released when that IGN "About Our Report from Last Year" was published nor does it provide a "link" between the game's content and the controversy, so it's again you misrepresenting sources (to push your goal to broaden the subject of the controvery, i.e., the company). --Cold Season (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up the game's content part since that's not what we're discussing. However, most of the sources I provided are all about the controversy impacting the game's public reputation during its pre-release phase of promotion, which is widely considered as part of the launch campaign. I thought we were operating under the consensus. If what you were saying is that the game's launch does not include its pre-release promotion, can we at least say something like During Black Myth: Wukong's pre-release promotion,... instead?
And my final point is that I have seriously yet to see a refutation about why what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy does not support ", and added controversy to the game's launch". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are now trying to link a pre-release demo, a literal unfinished product, to the controversy (which is also not supported in the source) is even more desperate... It just highlights you misrepresenting sources.

(You are still SEALIONING) This has been explained several times (here and in this RFC). --Cold Season (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say that the sources link it? You say "which is also not supported in the source". What is your reading of In the midst of the pre-release praise that Black Myth: Wukong enjoyed from its previews, IGN published a disturbing expose about the game's Chinese studio, Game Science. and what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy then, and how can I add the information from those quotes into the article? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. A company can have a sexist work environment and produce non-sexist products. Per sources, such is the case here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No Largely per Cold Season, Novellasyes and The Gnome. There isn't much to add to the arguments they've already presented. Note, I've arrived here per the WT:VG notification. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you like to add onto #c-Aaron_Liu-20241221150100-Cold_Season-20241221115500? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning https://beebom.com/2024-year-of-questionable-game-journalism/

I see this constant tactic of trying to ban reliable sources to hinder editing of this article, with people even targeting literal mainstream media sources such as HK01 for nonsense reasons. You are trying to remove a reliable source, one with transparent policies and featured in Forbes. --Cold Season (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSOPED. It doesn't matter how reliable the publication is as that article is an opinion piece. I don't think removing this source matters that much anyway as you've already cited the claim with other sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are there because people utterly failed at getting it banned. This is a repeat. --Cold Season (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should address the arguments instead of assuming intentions. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cold Season Please be aware that multiple editors have questioned that the source is appropriate for reporting, since it lacks a lot of the criteria we look for, and specifically that the article is an opinion piece, which, according to guidelines: ...opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. You are welcome to create an RfC on the reliability of it for these purposes, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]