Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games using procedural generation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using procedural generation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of video games identifying them by a trivial aspect of the game. Many of the items on the list have links to unreliable sources which don't actually mention this aspect of the game. The only contributor to the list has objected to the redirect, asking for input from other editors. Brad v 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So many things wrong with this list article but to sum it up it fails WP:NOR, Steam Store references are not reliable independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That a game is using procedural generation is a notable feature because it distinguishes it from those which use pre-generated textures etc.. As such, this is a notable topic for a list. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] for examples of RS explicitly discussing procedural generation when it comes to certain games. Problems with inclusion and sourcing can be handled by editing and do not require deletion, although entries which have their own articles in which the procedural generation aspect is mentioned and sourced don't need a source in the list anyway. Regards So Why 09:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to notable entries, remove all the store links, and reliably source every use of "procedural generation". It should not contain anything that Category:Video games using procedural generation does not, and the category implies there should already be a reliable source in that article discussing procedural generation in that game. It's common to talk about games where procedural generation applies to large portions of the game, like roguelikes and such. But it equally applies to minor parts of the games, like repeatable quests in Skyrim[6]. This distinction is why I think this list can serve as a supplement to the category if we get rid of the useless columns, like platforms, and actually fill out the notes about what the procedural generated content is for each game. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable feature, usually specifically mentioned in game coverage when present. Phediuk (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all entries with non-valid sourcing, such as a Steam store page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All items in the list currently seem to be sourced to their Steam store page, with the exception of Runescape. If we remove all such games without replacing them, we just end up removing the entire table, right? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bad thing to have a "List of games" and it doesn't mention any games at all. May as well delete it at that point. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable and increasingly more important as more and more games are using PG. The list covers much more titles than the brief sketch in Procedural generation, which serves only as an introduction. For those saying the category is enough, it's noteworthy that lists have advantages over categories, such as browseability. Other users and I have been expanding this list over the years since its creation to include more games and encourage the creation of articles about red-linked titles. I agree with all of you in that there are issues with the list, but I also agree with @User:SoWhy in that those don't require deletion and can be fixed with editing. - Alumnum (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic/feature is notable but the article needs some improvements as other editors have mentioned them already. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Currently, this page practically copies the procedural generation category of the Steam store, which is no what Wikipedia is about. I can't find any good listicles of procedural generation games, making me question whether this is a good set to have an independent article for like this. I do not see what this list currently brings to the table that the category doesn't already have, as there is barely any prose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: Have you looked at the links I provided above? This Gamasutra article for example discusses procedural generation listing seven different examples. Regards So Why 08:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apology, there are some, yes, but not that many. The other Gamasutra articles you linked are all about individual games, which is why I overlooked it. I do see some opportunity for such a list, and may be thinking of this deletion discussion in part as TNTing a list that has no validly-sourced content (per Dissident's comment above, really). I suppose I'll switch to a neutral, but I hope that someone will actually use these sources to create a proper encyclopedic list... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not questioning that procedural generation is not an encyclopedic topic, but its mostly just a facet of the game's design, like open world and there, we don't have a list, just a category (List of open world video games redirects to the category). Unless we're going to spend time to describe how procedural generation is used, the current procedural generation page is sufficient to call out typical uses, and a category sufficient to document those. (I'm also concerned about Steam store pages as the principle source. That something is procedurally generated should be coming from secondary or third-party sources). --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unless we're going to spend time to describe how procedural generation is used" I think that's the only reason to have this list in addition to the category. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant on a per-game basis. Some games this will be straight forward, but not for most others. --Masem (t) 19:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I also meant on a per-game basis. If there isn't a reliable source that mentions what procedural content the game has, then that game shouldn't be on the list (or in the category). Assuming we remove redlinks, then I would also assume all of these will have at least one review that mention at least something like "game X has randomly generated Y". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove most of the red-linked entries. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely can be improved. But several columns should be removed, especially the "Notes" column. wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove the Notes column, that makes this even less useful over a category to list the games. --Masem (t) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better to be less useful than filled with WP:IINFO like List of cooperative video games. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - While my first inclination would be to also say that should be a category too, the fact that there are discrete ways to talk about cooperative games that we know sources routinely cover (# of players, local vs Internet, split-screen vs shared) makes a table like that a tad bit useful (But do note, even with that table in that state, it has a lot of room for improvement). For procedural generation there is no easy way to discretize the types of procedural generation use into nice clean segments, and certainly not anything driven by sources. --Masem (t) 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable but needs improvement. I would add yes/no "X" columns for what is procedurally generated (ie map, terrain, characters, objects, sounds/music, textures,…) I would leave small notes column for other aspects. Category is not sufficient, many missing. Redlinks okay if adequately sourced (multiple). Wonder if a cutoff date would be good because so many games use it now. StrayBolt (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~: this list is using a definition of "procedural generation" which is FAR too broad. If this article is kept, it needs to massively restrict its scope. Any game that uses SpeedTree, for example, is minimally using procedural generation, but certainly not in a noteworthy or meaningful way. I would honestly nuke the list and start over to really examine whether each entry belongs here. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was pretty much what I was thinking: if we want this list to exist, it should only consist of games that have a notable usage of procedural generation. I mentioned WP:TNT above, because right now the list has nothing of the sort. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution would be purging all red-linked games, but that would remove the encouragement to create those non-existing pages. The Steam Store references are just a simple proof that those games do exist (without them, anyone could write anything and claim that it's a game's title). It's not the ideal way this list just should be; it's just a stimulus that more pages be created. - Alumnum (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, anyone is welcome to add better sources. Again, Steam is just for we to be sure that each game in fact exists. - Alumnum (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is that these games use procedural generation, not that they merely exist. WP:V requires a reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reiterate that procedural generation should not merely be present, but that it is *meaningfully* present. That a game procedurally generates trees and rocks might be true, but it's not interesting or noteworthy. To expand on Masem's point, procedural generation is a programming technique. Its use, in itself, is not a defining feature of a game, just as a game using ray tracing or sprite graphics or for loops is not defining. A "list of games using procedural generation *to aid gameplay*" might be worth maintaining. A list of games that procedurally generate rocks is not. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too broad. Procedural generation is a technique used to generate all sorts of content across multiple genres. Ubisoft for example use procedural generation to populate their open worlds.[7][8] If you want to narrow the scope to procedurally generated levels, you should create a list for that specific use case, such as List of roguelikes. - hahnch e n 14:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not seen a commitment on the part of Keepers and list authors to scope in this list to a level that does not degenerate into an indiscriminate one. Nuke this instantiation but without prejudice against recreating a semantically substantive version in its place (I'd want to see a proof of concept before supporting that). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage of procedural generation as a notable feature of games, and of specific games. This just becomes original research. Note the requirements for lists. Also other problems mentioned above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.