Talk:Stealth game

message: I removed "In 2007, Assassin's Creed introduced a social element to the stealth game, where the player is able to hide among a crowd of civilians if they take care to blend in." From the article, because social stealth was introduced in Hitman: Codename 47, long before Assassins Creed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.38.31 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a statement supported by a reference to a reliable source. Original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not valid reasons to remove it. bridies (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Stealth 

message: I'm not sure, but would the original Castle Wolfenstein be considered the first Stealth-based game? I can't think of any others that pre-date it. --Paul Soth 04:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First stealth game? 

message: would it be a good idea to include a list of stealth based games, or should that be a completely new page? you could break them down into a chronological list or a list of different games with their sequels and such. Metal Gear Solid is just the first, and now there are many different stealth based games. 
Examples:
*Tom Clancey's Splinter Cell Series
**Splinter cell
**Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow
**Splinter Cell Chaos Theory
**Splinter Cell Double Agent
*Metal Gear Series
**Metal Gear Solid
**Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
**Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
*Syphon Filter series
**Syphon Filter
**Syphon Filter 2
**Syphon Flter 3
**Syphon Filter Omega Strain
*Stolen
*Cold War
*Manhunt
and so on...
--:Travlr23 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place for that would be List of computer and video games by genre.  There's also a :Category:Stealth computer games (though it should probably be named "Stealth-based games").   --Mrwojo 23:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And so I changed it.  Also got rid of that bit about Splinter Cell coming up with 'double agent' play or whatever.  From what little I can find there's nothing in the game along those lines that the Hitman series hasn't done already. MuJoCh 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of games? 

message: No mention whatsoever of the Commandos series? They are definately stealth-based, and original because they use teamplay instead of a single first-perspective character.
It is an extreme disservice not to include the Commando's titles.  Not only did you have to use stealth but team stealth and cerebral use of all team members in order to accomplish a mission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.222.7 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commandos? 

message: Hey, could the  Burger King game " Sneak King" Be considered a stealth based game? It has nothing to do with killing people, rather it is a repetive series of delivering Burger King food to random people but it still requires an element of Stealth, as you must come from behind people to suprise them or hide in various  objects like boxes and porta- potties. 
-Steve
It wouldn't make any sense to include it as a major title or series, but it definitely deserves a place on the list of other stealth games, and it looks like somebody already added it anyway.
Ubersuntzu 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BK ? 

message: I'm a Thievery developer but it should be noted that Thievery had a cooperative multiplayer mode as well, before Splinter Cell.  I'll leave the article as-is, but I just thought I'd note it.  
-oRGy
Sorry, I'm the guy that wrote most of the explanations on the major series list. I'm a bit embarrassed to say I'd completely forgotten about Thievery as I've never played the mod myself and have only seen a few references to it over the years. Anyway, I've already changed the "first stealth co-op" listing to Tenchu: WoH a while back since it came out before Chaos Theory, but I'll add that it's the first commercial game to include it.
Ubersuntzu 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splinter Cell / Thievery 

message: I added the Drakan games to the list.  There was quite a lot of stealth in this highly underrated gem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.22.5 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drakan 

message: there are tons of references and info on mgs but almost none on thief. a lot of it feels like fanboyism and what little info there is of thief proves what an essential game it truly was to the stealth genre  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.211.229 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what a joke 

message: Everyone has been talking about Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell & Thief Series, but what about the Hitman Series? --The Dark Knight--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.53.195 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Hitman

message: Why was this done? I thought it was a very useful list. Jmj713 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List removal 

message: This article is actually in pretty decent shape, after a few solid hours of work. There's an adequate summary of the gameplay, and the history section is coming along. Here are a few things it needs to get to the next level:
* A "definition" section, which will be hard to find references for.
* Within the definition section, it may be helpful to offer a paragraph or two about stealth gameplay outside the genre. I'm sure I can find a source for this.
* Within the gameplay section, source the remaining statements, and expand where possible.
* Reference the early stealth game stuff, mainly focusing on Return to Castle Wolfenstein and the Metal Gear series.
* Translate the remaining "important games" list into the history section.
* Clean up the list in general, since this is meant to be a summary of stealth games rather than a complete list of games.
Probably the most helpful thing that can happen would be if this source turned out to be reliable. I asked a question here, and hopefully it will work out. Otherwise, we'll have to hope for a reliable source that offers as much useful information. Randomran (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking this article to the next level 

message: Someone reverted my deletion of the Important games and major series section here and I want to know, should it be kept on the article? There's no references to it. So it shouldn't be in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, we remove these kinds of lists from genre articles. Randomran (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not remove but move to a separate article. Jmj713 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list is pretty indiscriminate too. "Games with stealth in it" is pretty vague, and has led to a lot of questionable titles being added. Personally I'd just scrap the whole thing, because it fails WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Important games and major series''' section 

message: This was rated a good article, but there's still lots of missing pieces. The set up and pre-1998 information is adequate (but could possibly benefit from more exposition), but the post-1998 information, apart from too much focus on Metal Gear, is skimpy at best. Thief and Splinter Cell, two of the genre's most representative game series are mentioned very briefly in passing, glossed over as afterthoughts. Much more information needs to be added regarding them, as well as the games in the Hitman series, another important entry in the stealth genre, and again mentioned very briefly here. Additionally, there's very little information about the more recent games and the few that are mentioned are again mentioned in passing without much substance. There have been very good stealth games released in recent years that are very much representative of the genre (such as The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and Velvet Assassin for instance), as well as the upcoming games like The Saboteur and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Jmj713 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a general overview of the genre; all the respective games have articles in which they are discussed in-depth. If you have more to add then do so, with sources. bridies (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion needed 

message: re this edit and similar. The article in question does not make any mention of stealth games, or place whatever RPG in the context of the genre, let alone say why it is important to the genre. Taking a mention of "stealth" being used in one level, and then stating the game contains "early stealth elements" or whatever is personal conjecture and not permitted; simply by making such a mention in the article one implies that it is somehow important or at least noteworthy and again that is not supported by the source. It's all largely moot anyway because once again this has been sourced to some random blog with no established reliability. bridies (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Since there is some sort of problem with my work on this article, I’ve itemized the changes to make it easy to explain exactly why a revert was necessary:
1)
Changed
“However, the genre was not popularized until 1998, with…”
to
“The genre was further popularized in 1998 with…”
--
If you have a source which states that the genre was not popular before 1998, please cite it. 
2)
Changed
“Because the player can hide in the dark, light and shadow are important…”
to
“Because the player can often hide in the dark, light and shadow become important…”
--
The cited article itself states, “In most stealth games, the player hides in the shadows…”
Not all, most. Please explain your problem with the new wording.
3)
Changed
“…such as when the player turns off the lights. Enemies typically have a line of sight which the player can avoid by hiding behind objects or staying in the shadows, and enemies will react if the player accidentally touches them.
to
“…such as when the player turns off the lights or touches the enemy. Enemies typically have a line of sight which the player can avoid by hiding behind objects or staying in the shadows.”
--
In this case, you have a point. I re-wrote the sentences but I forgot to move the sources. My question then is: why did you revert my changes instead of fixing the minor over-sight?
4)
Moved 
“In order for a game to include stealth gameplay, the knowledge of the artificial intelligence must be…”
to the beginning of the paragraph about AI.
--
Please explain your objection to this layout change.
In the future, I’d appreciate it if you would revert only when necessary, work to preserve content that I’ve worked to add, and remember that this article does not belong to you.
I was hoping to expand upon this article, but I'd like to know ahead of time if it's going to be a waste of time. Thanks.168.158.220.3 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left the latter points but reverted point one again. There are two cited sources to this effect in the article body; the whole structure of the article is based around 1998 being a turning point. As for your hyperbole and implicit accusations of bad faith: I did not remove anything, merely reverted your changing of sourced content (so WP:PRESERVE is moot). In any case, in practice I'm not at all obligated to go over your mistakes with a fine comb. bridies (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: With regards to point 2, I wouldn't have reverted had you pointed out that the source was misrepresented. In your edit summary you appeared to reference a primary source (i.e. to the effect of "MG doesn't have shadows") which I took to be OR. And with regards to point 4, my objection was simply that you changed the long standing status quo without explanation. bridies (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I'm not obligated to explain my changes to you. You reverted with almost no explanation and so I brought the issue to discussion to explain your mistake to you. I assume nothing about your motivations but your actions were hasty and disrespectful and I wanted to clear it up so that it doesn't happen again. Thank you for respecting my future changes and I look forward to collaborating with you. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, as for change number 1, can you please cite which source states that the genre was not popular before 1998? I agree with the angle that 1998 was a turning point, but this sentence seems to be an opinion and should either be softened or tagged . But I'd rather just clear it up here. Thanks 168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference 4 states: "once upon a time, stealth in games was rare. This began to change in 1998 with the arrival of Tenchu, Thief and Metal Gear Solid". The other is number 22, an offline source which I believe was added by User:Randomran. I didn't state that you were obligated to explain your changes, but that it is helpful to do so and that it is pretty rich for you to demand explanations where you did not give one yourself (why have you changed the status quo on "content arrangement")?), to insist that I sort out your errors for you and to accuse me of delusions of ownership on the basis of one revert. If you modify sourced content with no explanation, or an explanation that does not make sense, you cannot be surprised if you're reverted. bridies (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm awfully sorry that the burden of proof fell on your shoulders. I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia encourages bold edits (even those that go against the 'status quo') but it doesn't encourage bold reverts. You brought it upon yourself to try and 'sort out my errors' and seem to think that you can revert my edits simply because you didn't understand them. My edits were justified, your revert wasn't. Whether or not you can admit your mistake, I'm willing to move on. Here's to a civil relationship. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

text: There's still the source which says that stealth in games was rare before 1998. To say that the genre "was popularized in" is just as much an opinion as the previous version and in any case opinion is fine as long as it is attributable to a reliable source. Nevertheless I'm fine with either wording, the difference in semantics is negligible. Again, I would reiterate that the "status quo" equates to at least some level of consensus and that you have not justified why you changed the structure. I also don't understand why you've invoked WP:BURDEN. My revert was justified: it would nice if you either shut up about it or took it to whoever you think might care if you really believe it was a mistake, rather than than continuing to passive-aggressively imply I've violated the revert and civility policies. bridies (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for nothing. Now, if we may return to matters of content, I am fine with moving the statement on AI further up, so there remains only one matter of controversy: on reflection I don't feel your paraphrasing of the two sources misrepresents them any less than you felt the original did. I have quoted both sources verbatim in the lead and cited them as you originally asked for. This must surely settle the question unless you know of and can reference conflicting opinions. bridies (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, you took the higher route of arguing about it and telling me to shut up. The changes look good, I think we're done. Thanks :)72.208.249.62 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 10.22 

message: "In 2007, Assassin's Creed introduced a social element to the stealth game..."
This has been challenged several times. I propose we resolve it here before it is edited further.
The counter-claim is that the Hitman (series) was responsible for the introduction of a social element to stealth games. This may just be an issue of wording.
Can someone find the quotation from the GameAxis source so that it can be verified?
Also, are there any sources to support the Hitman claim? I found this source which supports the social element of the original Hitman game, but nothing to claim that it was the first.168.158.220.3 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A "counter claim" or "challenge" is nothing without supporting sources. I have seen the GameAxis source before but cannot remember the quote verbatim (wasn't me who added it); but in any case the fact that one cannot find the quote online doesn't diminish the strength of the reference. Add relevant, sourced info regarding Hitman if you will, but not-sourced or original claims aren't a reason to add a "dubious" tag to a sourced statement. bridies (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I found the source. The quote is: "Like Metal Gear and Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed is a stealth game, though it handles the stealth mechanics in a totally different (and realistic) way. Dubbed 'Social Stealth'... [goes on to describe blending with crowds and such]". One could argue about whether "totally different" in the source or "introduced" in the article implies it being the first or not; I've changed the word "introduced" to "employed". The use of "dubbed" and quotation marks suggest to me that "social stealth" was a buzzword attached to this particular game. bridies (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for the advice but I’m going to have to disagree. This is a textbook example of a disputed (dubious) statement: it’s obviously inaccurate, it’s difficult to verify, and it’s been challenged since at least December of last year. An offline source certainly doesn’t diminish the strength of the claim but it still requires verification, hence the  and  tags. In this case, ‘dubious’ covers all of our bases by taking it directly to talk. Up until this point, the dispute has apparently been ignored and the article has been reverted but all it took was one minor change to settle the objections and make this a better article. Thanks for discussing and fixing the problem.168.158.220.3 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no valid dispute or challenge up until this point and it was not "obviously" or indeed at all inaccurate. If I wanted to insist on the original wording pertinent to "social stealth" I'm sure I'd be successful as there's nothing to challenge that verbatim. "Verifiable" pertains to individual readers, not some process of double checking done by editors, but hey even if it were, it's been verified more than once before. It is certainly not a "textbook case" of WP:DISPUTE: it is not "unlikely information" (the worst charge that could be levelled at the claim is one of slight semantic ambiguity) and is/was supported by a reference; it is not "particularly difficult" to verify (the source can be read via Google); and it was not added by a user (that I'm pretty sure being User:Randomran) "known to write inaccurately on the topic". If you still want to argue protocol after the fact, again, do it on my talk page or some more appropriate venue, thanks bridies (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing left to discuss, as far as I'm concerned. The original wording was dubious, it was challenged by several editors and yet the article remained unchanged for almost a year. When someone finally requested verification it was discovered that, not surprisingly, the wording was inaccurate the whole time. In light of this fact, you still seem to be suggesting that I had no right to challenge the material because it was sourced. I know you know how Wikipedia policy works, so I'm not going to go back and forth quoting policies out of context. As long as you follow the protocols and make the necessary changes (as you did), you can be 'right' until a month full of Sundays168.158.220.3 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong and have ignored what I just said, again, but whatever. bridies (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I'm a TF2 player, and I'm not sure Team Fortress 2 includes any stealth features, or at least features included on the other games on this page, that would make it belong in this category.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.239.214 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Is Fallout 3 worth mentioning? It was just reusing the stealth mechanic used in some of The Elder Scrolls games, most notably Oblivion. It is also "first-person role-playing game" that "incorporated stealth elements within its gameplay". They were both made by the same developer, and use the same engine. Perhaps Oblivion (2006) should be mentioned instead of Fallout (2008)...--188.220.132.43 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallout/Oblivion? 

message: Should this be mentioned? It is a successor to the spirit of the Thief games (minus the copyrightable bits), and much more to the spirit than Thief 3 some say, and already feature complete and has more than 60 missions - more content and playtime than some of the commercially released games. While it still relies on Doom 3 as a game engine, it is expected to be a stand-alone game later on.
There is a rather comprehensive German wikipedia article, but no English one yet.
Tels (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dark Mod ? 

message: The Dark Mod has been added to the recent history section with the notability of it's standalone release (articles on
slashdot, kotaku, destructoid, joystiq, etc)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 

message: A common aspect of many but not all stealth games is that, if an enemy is killed stealthily, (or accurately) they die straight away regardless of their health/hit points, where as non stealth, or regular face to face fighting, health comes into it, and an enemy will need to be hit several times to get their health down before they die. I think this could be put in. Eg in Tenchu slashing an unaware enemy's throat from behind kills them instantly, but if they are aware you are there it may take several "regular hits" in combat to kill them. Strangling someone in Hitman as opposed to several shots to the body. Vaguely simular to the common idea of head shots vs body shots in many games. I could add it myself but most of the common aspects are sourced and I don't know one for this off hand, What do users think? Carlwev (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find a reliable source for this, go ahead and add it. Otherwise, it will be considered OR. Nczempin (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Health

message: 2010's Amnesia: The Dark Descent provided a twist to the stealth genre in that remaining in the dark causes the protagonist to go insane.  Thus, while it is necessary to hide in darkness from monsters, doing so for an extended period is detrimental to the character's health, requiring more risk taking. In 2011, Deus Ex: Human Revolution (a prequel to the original game) used a contextual cover-mode that worked for both combat and stealth allowing the player to fight from cover or remain undetected entirely. When taking cover, the camera switches from a first-person to a third-person perspective to show the player character and his surroundings, as well as provide options for automatically moving to another cover position. Apart from certain unavoidable "boss fights" it is possible to complete the game without ever being detected by enemies. The game also featured several abilities, which, if added to the player character, could be used for both stealth and combat, such as the ability to see through walls or become invisible for a short duration. In 2012, the spiritual successor to the Thief Series, Dishonored, was released. Similar to Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it allowed players to use either stealth or combat (or a mix of both), as well as special powers that can be used for either purpose. Players can also use cover, but unlike Deus Ex: Human Revolution, there's no separate mode or camera perspective. Instead, players can sneak behind anything that breaks an enemy's line of sight, and must lean out to observe.
--Niemti (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stealth game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417113507/http://www.gamespot.com:80/xbox/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html?page=3 to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html?page=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On August 18, the following content was added to the history section: 
---
The first stealth game was Manbiki Shounen (Shoplifting Boy), a PET 2001 personal computer game developed by Hiroshi Suzuki, a 19 year-old Tokyo University student, in October 1979, and released in November 1979. Inspired by a 7/11 store near his university, the game involves a boy entering a convenience store and attempting to shoplift by stealing "$" symbols, while avoiding the line-of-sight detection of the owner; if caught, the player is led away by the police. He presented the game to Space Invaders developer Taito, which used it as inspiration for their similar stealth arcade game, Lupin III (based on the manga and anime of the same name), released in April 1980. Suzuki developed a Manbiki Shounen sequel, Manbiki Shoujo (Shoplifting Girl), released in November 1980 for the PET 2001, requiring an installed PCG (Programmable Character Generator) module for improved tile map graphics and more realistic movement. The game also featured speech synthesis and joystick support. Manbiki Shounen was later ported to the PC-6001 in July 1982.ref>cite book |last=Szczepaniak |first=John |year=2014 |title=The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers |publisher=SMG Szczepaniak |volume=1 |pages=604-615 |isbn=978-0-9929260-3-8 }}</ref>
---
This would be a great addition to the article, however there are some concerns about the source. "The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers" is a self-published source (and I believe kickstarter funded) and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's general guidelines for reliability. From some cursory searching, I can at least confirm that the game seems to exist and appears to be a stealth game, but most of the sources I find seem to reference back to this SPS. Firstly, can someone with access to the book please provide more direct information from the source? I.e. it appears to be a book filled with interviews. Is there a transcript of the interview with this information? Secondly, can anyone find any reliable third-party sources confirming this game, especially as a stealth game and especially as being the first stealth game? Thank you in advance. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The game itself is a reliable source for its existence. That existence could be noted after RS claims about what was first. It is not necessary to resolve the discrepancy through article text. The information about the author and his inspiration would have to be reliably sourced or autobiographical. Rhoark (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further research, I can't even really confirm the game exists. I thought I'd found third-party information about it and even a screenshot, but now I can't seem to find anything that doesn't trace back to the same source. It seems that this information originally came from a 2004 email interview (in Japanese) between Masamoto Morita and programmer Akira Takiguchi. The interview was copied and translated by John Szczepaniak and subsequently used in his self-published book. The wording of that interview is "Manbiki Shounen is game about shoplifting from a store while avoiding being spotted by the shopkeeper. A PC-6001 port was featured in Mycom BASIC magazine, July 1982. However, Mr. Suzuki was not involved with this port." It does not appear that the interview was published anywhere but this website, then subsequently on the Gamasutra blog (not officially overseen by Gamasutra), and finally the book. Ideally, access to the Mycom BASIC magazine from July 1982 could easily resolve this, but I can't find an archive. If anyone else digs anything up, it'd be appreciated. I don't believe it's a hoax but with such scarce information, I can't objectively confirm it isn't. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Correction, I forgot about this source using the name MANBIKI SYONEN. Screenshots are available on this site. It does at least satisfy, to my mind, that the game existed, however this site also appears to be self-published (per the About page) and does not confirm when the game was published ("1983?"). It does seem to mention a RAM February 1980 edition, which may be another third-party magazine. Again, though, I can find no archive. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the improvements. It's always nice to be able to add more information on the history of a subject. I didn't personally distrust the source, I just thought it was unusual to find so little mention of the game outside that source. The attribution is also a nice touch. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manbiki Shounen 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Stealth game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105124933/http://www.absolute-playstation.com/metal_gear_2/metal_gear_2_feature_1.htm to http://www.absolute-playstation.com/metal_gear_2/metal_gear_2_feature_1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523044731/http://www.1up.com/reviews/metal-gear-acid_5 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/metal-gear-acid_5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309204615/http://www.gamecyte.com/riddick-dark-athena-is-remake-no-more to http://www.gamecyte.com/riddick-dark-athena-is-remake-no-more
*Added  tag to http://www.gameinformer.com/Magazine/Insider/Articles/Article/200905/A09.0414.1437.20481.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-29-why-dishonored-ditched-its-thief-shadow-stealth-mechanic
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Strange enough how the genre analyzed in historical perspective. Some games which are famous and matches to the genre is out of the scope (Sid Meier's Covert Action). On the other hand, Saboteur completely has no stealth game mechanics (no hinding, no noise, no alarm, no disguises and so on), and is considered as a stealth game (and it's based on one not-stealth-review statement). In addition, the question of emerging of the genre is open. For example, all submarine simulator games use stealth as a cornerstone of their gameplay. Some games are not personal (shooter, RPG, ..) like F-19 Stealth Fighter and entirely based on stealth game mechanics. It seems that simulator of machine eclipses stealth, and only if a person is hiding it is considered as a stealth game. Bsivko (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you scroll back to the discussions in 2009, myself and a few other editors raised these same questions. Stealth as a gameplay element is much broader than the few major titles which defined it as a genre. At the time, there was a lot of pointless resistance to change in the article, as you can see from the massive debate over "A stealth game is" vs "stealth game is". Thankfully, some of those obstacles are no longer around and this article has expanded beyond the scope of a few cornerstone sources. I'm curious to know more about Covert Action. What do you think makes it out of scope? Also, since you mentioned it, I've looked more into Saboteur and it seems dubious at best. Retrogamer describes the ability to sneak up on guards, but I don't see any evidence of that. It appears to be just an action game. Will investigate further and possibly mark as dubious. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few changes which should hopefully help. Saboteur is certainly on theme and invites comparison to Metal Gear, but I don't know if "stealth" was ever intentionally programmed into the AI. I mean, any game with AI usually has some potential to "sneak up" on the enemies, but they can't all be stealth games. Still, RG is an ok source so I've attributed their claim and we can leave it at that, for now. I've also added the somewhat tongue-in-cheek comparison of Pac Man to stealth games, which should help illustrate the shades of gray. Stealth games are great in that you know them when you see them, but once you get to the details it becomes a muddy sorting game. Scoundr3l (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  Covert Action - it surprises me because of missing. Covert Action is completely spy game (setting), human perspective (not simulator like F-19), it's well known as Sid Meier's work and it has numerous stealth gameplay elements - hiding from guards in action, hidden car chasing, vehicle tracing, circuit wiretapping, different enemy alarm "systems" (visual spotting, electronic, by double agent, ..), level of disturbing in different places, .. A vivid example - if you've got clothes of guards then guards will not start alarm only if they see your back. I understand how Wikipedia works and it's obvious that we need good reliable sources which conducted research about "stealth game" (but not about some particular game). Till then, it would be hard to get high quality. Otherwise, it leads to original research. That's why I'm writing about "awaiting". Bsivko (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

text:  Speaking of Saboteur, I played both parts of this series and do not remember any stealth game mechanic. The only thing which can be called as 'stealth' of AI that enemy can chase the protagonist 1-2 screens and attack him. However, this kind of behaviour is present in other games which were developed and published earlier than Saboteur (e.g., Alley Cat, Maziacs, Bomberman, etc.). And I certainly wouldn't call this kind of "sneaking" as stealth mechanic. Bsivko (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't see anything in Saboteur that looks like real 'stealth', just a superficial resemblance to later stealth games. I attributed that statement to the writer, at least, which I think helps. RetroGamer can be a bit spotty. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awaiting of deeper understanding of stealth 

message: There's a number of different contenders listed for "first stealth game", which is to be expected, but they're all basically maze games. We can support that Lupin III was a maze game and it was built upon Shoplifting boy, Castle Wolfenstein was based on Berzerk which is the "canonical example" of a maze game, 005 is a maze game, and even Pac Man (the maze game archetype) is given cheeky reference to being the first stealth game. I've added a mention of maze games since it's a common thread in early stealth games and hopefully passes for WP:COMMONSENSE. However, since I can't find any sources directly linking maze games to the origin of stealth games, I've left it at an empirical mention. Hopefully we find a source which expands on that as there are a lot of great maze games which fit into the "stealth" niche. In the mean time, though, I'll avoid OR and let the reader decide. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They're certainly not the same, I'll grant you that. But as to the question of what makes a stealth game and where they come from, the search invariably leads to maze game territory. What's interesting about the article you've linked (and I can't say I agree with the vague delimitation in most of these genres) is that it doesn't include a genre for stealth, but it does include an entry for "escape" games where the objective is to escape pursuers. The examples cited under escape games are all maze games, save one. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can consider, for example, a submarine simulator. There are no any maze, but at the same time the game can have some stealth game mechanics. Likewise, F-19. There are a lot of dynamic objects which have different patterns of detection and gameplay is based on interaction with these patterns. Bsivko (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maze games origin 

message: Hello all, I've added several sections with some context, particularly around notable indie stealth games, the Commandos-like subgenre, and a few other things. I have added some citations but if a more practiced editor would like to review my additions that would be great. 209.205.106.18 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've added citation aswell. HungerOfBox (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, appreciated 209.205.106.18 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some information 

message: I saw the entire list of MGS series and noticed there isnt MGS:PW and MGSV:GZ.I think they should be added. 188.132.237.187 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  MGS:PW Should be added