6

I saw some tag wiki suggestions for in the review queue today. The game doesn't come out for several months and so has no valid questions until that time, so why do we need such a tag right now? Should tag wikis for upcoming games be rejected (if they're not coming out in a few days)?

| |
  • 7
    The tag will be automatically deleted for not having any questions tagged with it – juan Jun 10 '13 at 20:51
  • Someone asked a Battlefield 4 question earlier today, but later deleted their question. – Wipqozn Jun 10 '13 at 21:20
  • 1
    Grats about 5,000 reps! – badp Jun 10 '13 at 21:22
  • @jmfsg Please convert that to an answer :). – deutschZuid Jun 10 '13 at 21:35
  • @deutschZuid it doesn't really answer the question, it's more of a "don't worry about it" kind of thing – juan Jun 10 '13 at 21:38
  • I've asked the question and corresponding tag. Here is meta question related to that: meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/7286/… – vartec Jun 11 '13 at 13:11
  • It's possibly a whole different can of worms - but I'll add to this discussion that I think our policies on Betas are in conflict with the "no speculation on future releases". The fear about future releases is that we might have a sourced answer which turns out to be wrong when the game is released. But the same thing can happen with a Beta - and for that matter, the same thing can and does happen with post-release patches. – EBongo Jun 14 '13 at 4:04
7

We shouldn't have tags for games that we can't have questions about.

Fortunately, the system handles this for us, once the (off topic!) question on which the tag was used is suitably and swiftly deleted, the tag will be purged from the system within the next day.

If someone is foolish enough to try to submit a wiki for such a tag, feel free to reject it as not helpful or with a custom reject explaining that the tag is slated for deletion. It happens often enough.

| |
-6

Just because a game isn't out doesn't mean you can't have a question about it, does it?

  • Will Battlefield 4 on the Xbox support 64 players?
  • Will BF4 be relased on the Xbox 360 or Xbox One?
  • etc...

I think these are good examples of completely valid and potentially answerable questions.

| |
  • 7
    These are exactly the types of questions we do NOT want. This is why questions about unreleased games are off-topic. – Frank Jun 11 '13 at 14:48
  • 3
    Why do "we" NOT want these? – Devil's Advocate Jun 11 '13 at 14:48
  • 2
    @ScottBeeson We've had a long history of discussion on the subject; you're welcome to look around here on Meta and find the old posts. The conclusion we came to is that we don't do questions about unreleased games. – LessPop_MoreFizz Jun 11 '13 at 14:53
  • 2
    @ScottBeeson: Speculation about future releases are off-topic for a number of reasons. First, there's no way to answer a question until it's released. Games change all the time in developments, and features are added and removed frequently. Second, many of these questions are completely irrelevant once the game is released. Third, you're supposed to only ask questions about "problems you actually face." Whether or not a game has a feature before it's released is not a problem that you actually face. For all these reasons questions about future released are almost always closed as off-topic. – Wipqozn Jun 11 '13 at 14:53
  • 1
    Well, saying there's "no way to answer a question until it's released" is just silly (see examples) and I think this is doing a major disservice to the community. But if that's what the regime decided on, so be it I guess... – Devil's Advocate Jun 11 '13 at 14:55
  • 6
    History is littered with broken promises from game developers. Molyneux is a prime example of over-promising and under-delivering. That's a perfect example of official information being wrong. It's part of the reasons why we don't allow these questions. As a sidenote, calling us a regime is at least slightly annoying. If you want to be constructive, I'd recommend toning down the attitude. – Frank Jun 11 '13 at 15:03
  • 1
    Well in fairness your first response had italics, caps and bold, but I digress. – Devil's Advocate Jun 11 '13 at 15:05
  • 2
    Italics, caps, and bold? How dare you, @fbueckert! – SaintWacko Jun 11 '13 at 15:08
  • lol +1 for SaintWacko – Devil's Advocate Jun 11 '13 at 15:08
  • Sorry; I tend to get passionate about this. Much of it is that there's lots of history behind why we don't allow it, and it's all available on meta to read, so I'm not a fan of people going, "Nothing wrong with this!", and not knowing the history behind it. I apologize. – Frank Jun 11 '13 at 15:10
  • 2
    Fair enough, but you can't expect the average user wanting to know "What platforms will Battlefield 4 be released on" to read the entire contents of meta to understand why their perfectly reasonable question is invalid. – Devil's Advocate Jun 11 '13 at 15:14
  • 3
    @ScottBeeson No, but we can expect them to type their question into google first. Part of the tooltip on the downvote arrow is 'shows poor research effort'. – LessPop_MoreFizz Jun 11 '13 at 15:16
  • 3
    @vartec We discussed our site's role and what we can offer early on in our site's inception. Just because other resources exist, it doesn't mean we don't have anything to bring to the table. – FAE Jun 12 '13 at 0:04
  • 3
    @vartec If you don't think this site is useful and distinct in it's role, you're welcome to leave. Being an Arqade user is not a mandatory activity. – LessPop_MoreFizz Jun 12 '13 at 11:50
  • 1
    @LessPop_MoreFizz: that's the spirit, keep up the good job... – vartec Jun 12 '13 at 12:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .