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 articles
I tagged the "Planned features" list as unsourced and advertisement/buzzword-heavy crystal-ball material. While I doubt this will end up as vaporware, we need to be careful about highlighting shiny features of an unreleased game, especially when it's unsourced. Even if sources appear, we should pare it back to what reliable, third-party sources consider its key features. I don't have much time to look through sources now, but I wanted to leave a note to avoid it seeming like drive-by tagging. If I can't find sources after a few days, I'll remove the section.
Woodroar (
talk)
02:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Not only is it a primary source, but it's a sales-oriented primary source, and will inherently be "
unduly self-serving" in showcasing the product's selling points. It's not that I don't believe the features exist, but we need a reliable, third-party source to tell us which of them are important.
Woodroar (
talk)
05:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You can go ahead and use the Kotaku reference for that then as they have all reported on it.
The game is never coming out and the creator took the money and ran. he ignores any inquiries about the game and by all accounts it's considered a scam. I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia page.
145.40.173.69 (
talk)
03:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)reply