This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
While it could be argued that
WP:SUBJECT applies to mentioning the Cruelty Squad Wikipedia article on the article itself, I think it is important as a way of contextualizing the developer's comment that the game was made to be "as beautiful as possible" as being at least partially facetious; even if the quote were to be removed as being "unencyclopedic," it would likely be re-added and cause an edit war, considering how the dev on twitter seems quite hostile to Wikipedia editors (calling them "eggheads" and "nerds"). If anyone has a counter-argument towards how I think this self-reference issue should be approached, or have ideas for how to expand the analysis of the game's aesthetics, I'd like to hear it.
Ithinkiplaygames (
talk) 00:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not facetious. I'm not sure it needs any "contextualization" at all. Simply going through the developer's work previous to Cruelty Squad would reveal his consistent aesthetic vision which he has crafted over time. His vision is beautiful in the sense of its aesthetic brilliance, but more importantly (and undeniably) his work subscribes to 'his idea' of beauty. To claim he was merely being facetious is a spit in the face. Furthermore, in response to his supposed hostility towards Wikipedia editors, I suggest you consider that this was in response to a claim on this page that something he spent a long time putting effort into creating was described as "deliberately as ugly as possible" on the Wikipedia page.
80.220.48.26 (
talk) 06:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I understand what you mean, and I for one absolutely do think that Cruelty Squad has a unique beauty to it; however, I don't think that precludes the dev's comment from being something of a joke or "take that" at the editor of the original version of this article. Wikipedia isn't in the work of art criticism, so the "as ugly as possible" line was very much out of scope, but I think at the same time, having an article quote a developer saying that a game was "intended to be beautiful" reads as something of a non-sequitur unless you know that it was in response to someone calling the game "ugly." I mean no ill will to the dev at all, I think the reputation Wikipedia editors get as being somewhat snobby and pedantic is sometimes disappointingly deserved. I was simply providing reasoning as to why the quote probably couldn't be removed outright.
Ithinkiplaygames (
talk) 07:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education assignment: Art since 1945
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 18 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zorms887 (
article contribs).