Talk:Danger Close Games

Video games Mid‑importance

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

(no subject)

Can anyone explain why Dreamworks is credited (almost everywhere) with the two Sega Genesis games listed in the article? Those specific games were released in 1990, however, DreamWorks Interactive was founded in 1995. It doesn't really make sense to me. I've looked everywhere and every site with a bio on DreamWorks Interactive lists them being founded in 1995 and yet still developing these games that were released in 1990. Was Dreamworks formerly another game studio? K1Bond007 03:09, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

DWI was a new company founded by Microsoft and DreamWorks SKG. There was another similarly-named studio that made 8-bit games. I've deleted the products that pre-date the existence of the company as they clearly don't belong.

Nancy Drew game removed. All of those were developed by Her Interactive AFAIK. Revert if wrong. 217.195.230.141 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EA Los Angeles (EALA)

From Official Sites:

http://www.ea.com/locations/los-angeles

"EALA is home to two development studios, BioWare’s Victory Studio developing games in the Command and Conquer franchise and Danger Close Games, the developer behind the 2010 reboot of EA’s Medal of Honor franchise that moved the series out of WWII and into today’s modern conflicts."

https://jobs.ea.com/locations/usa/la/

"EALA is also home to world renowned development studios including Victory Games, Danger Close and Visceral Games. Victory Games' popular Command & Conquer franchise has sold over 30 million copies. Danger Close co-developed EA's Medal of Honor award-winning first person shooter franchise. Visceral Games develops critically acclaimed next-gen action games including Dead Space and Dante's Inferno."

To conclude: Danger Close Games is not former EA Los Angeles but its (EALA's) in-house development studio. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning the bad reception to many dice la games?

such as tiberian twilight, warfighter etc. - 83.100.233.169 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate articles Danger Close / DICE LA

In the article it is said Danger Close was rebranded as DICE LA. I know, this was also written in the press for a while, because the status of Danger Close was unknown and EA did not comment (Video Gamer). So when EA announced DICE LA, some magazines wrote it being the former Danger Close team. The thing is, they didn't cite official sources about this detail, they simply assumed.

But in June, there was an article by Eurogamer that contains an interview with Patrick Söderlund, responsible manager for EA's games labels, where he says: "Danger Close as it was doesn't exist anymore. There are people who left LA, people who work with DICE LA, and there are some who work in other parts of EA, as always when something gets dismantled." It also says, the new DICE LA team is a mix of former Danger Close members, other EA devs and people moving from DICE Stockholm to LA, with the leaders all coming from Sweden. It is also written, that DICE LA expects to have 60 employees until the end of 2013. (Eurogamer) In opposite to this, former Danger Close studio consisted of several developer teams, including for mobile, music and strategy games (Gamasutra).

A leading EA manager speaking of "dismantling" a team doesn't sound like a simple rebrand, especially when only some people got transferred to DICE LA. Last but not least, this new team is under direction of DICE Sweden. So I think it is legit to make a cut and give them seperate articles. -- 46.115.104.3 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New DICE LA Stub

Hello Wikipedia - Andy Katkin from EA here again. I recently created a new page for EA LA and would like to start a new stub post for DICE LA. These are in fact separate entities. Here's the copy I would like to use for the DICE LA entry. As always, I will leave this copy up on Talk for a few days before making any edits. If you have any comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention.

DICE Los Angeles opened in May in 2013, as an additional location to the DICE studio based in Stockholm and founded in 1992. DICE Los Angeles is building on the ongoing development in Stockholm on titles such as Battlefield, one of the biggest and most exciting brands in entertainment. The L.A. studio is also working on unannounced projects, all built on the Frostbite 3 engine. In May 2013, DICE General Manager Karl-Magnus Troedsson said in an interview: ”There is an extreme talent pool over that we want a part of.” [1] Akatkin (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, after 29 days and no new comments since September 7. It seems that there may not be enough reliable sources to get a clear picture of what's happened here, meaning the current setup prevails for now. Feel free to start a new RM if it's justified by newly found sources. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DICE Los Angeles → Danger Close Games – Danger Close is not DICE LA. They are not the same company. Danger Close was completely disbanded, and its employees were moved to other parts of EA, such as DICE LA. DICE LA was opened before the closure of Danger Close was even announced, and it is only a successor. DICE LA isn't notable on its own right now, since it has only do support work, but it should have its own article some day, instead of sharing a page with Danger Close. If it is the same company, they could have simply renamed itself, like how Sony Cambridge Studio was merged into Guerrilla Games. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DICE LA was first announced on May 15 ([2][3][4][5]), which was the result of a reported "Restructuring". TheSixthAxis reported that EA simply renamed the company. The studio now operates as a division of EA DICE and not directly as a subsidiary of EA itself. Danger Close caesed major operations early in 2013, and staff were laid off in the following February. ([6]) That Danger Close was actually closed was first reported in June 2013 ([7]), which states that people "stayed" at DICE LA. DICE LA operates in the same offices with a good amount of the same staff, just with a different heading, Fredrik Löving being the general manager. ([8][9]) There is nothing that directly speaks against DICE LA not being Danger Close, just many things that speak for that. Lordtobi (✉) 08:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheSixthAxis source is not considered as a reliable source, and seems to be based on the Wall Street Journal, which I assume does not mention that the company was renamed, since other sources don't. The Gamasutra source, also based on the Journal, clearly states that "number of EA employees who worked on the Medal of Honor series already on board", but that could also mean that they were fired, did not accept the offer to be transferred to other parts of EA, and get re-hired. The DICE LA page does not even list EA LA/Danger Close games, which sort of suggest that DICE LA isn't a direct continuation of Danger Close. The evidence that Danger Close is DICE LA isn't convincing enough. I would compare the relation between Danger Close to DICE LA to Free Radical Design and Dambuster Studios. They has relations, but we are not 100% sure if they are the same company. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is more that we are unsure about how it actually is, as sources do not provide enough evidence for either of those sides "Danger Close Games was renamed" or "Danger Close Games only shifted some developers to DICE LA". I suspect that it is more of a presentative closure to resurrect it as an EA DICE division rather than a normal EA subsid. It was originally also reported that "Danger Close Game [was] a new studio by the Medal of Honor team.", which would per licensing be impossible and such. Check, for example, the Battlefield Hardline credits, of the 33 people credited under "DICE LA" ('special thanks' excluded), about 22 worked on Medal of Honor or Command & Conquer with DGC, of the few leading possitions, 50% were also the same. Even if this might be original research, we cannot prove that it is not as or similar to what TSA stated, and I saw TSA used as reliable source before. We should probably try to find more sources covering it in more detail, maybe someone has a WSJ subscription?, before moving the article. Lordtobi (✉) 14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, though I don't know exactly where we should ask. I am not sure whether other WPVG editors have such subscription. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Work out the article structure first. It seems to me that the Dreamworks Interactive article might well be worth restoring, for example. The objective is to be reader-friendly, and this complex story might well be better covered by several short, focused articles rather than trying to fit them all together in one puzzling article under an unexpected title. DI is very likely to be notable enough for its own article IMO, with two very notable games to its credit, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the actual criteria. Then see which of the others qualify. Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather off-topic to the actualy question, but regardless, I think that DreamWorks Interactive does not have enough notability to have its own article established, excluding the content following its acquisition. Especially the revision you linked is no more than and introductory sentence. If you look onto the current article, it is evident that there is no more information than "it was formed", "it released [game]" and "it was acquired", which would result in another unnecessary stub. Leaving it here is much better of an option to avoid stubbing and keep it clean, it would work out the way it does with DMA Design. Lordtobi (✉) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the version I linked to is a stub (even if not tagged as one), but it's a good stub and does IMO establish notability. The actual criteria in a nutshell are has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is what establishes whether or not an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization or product. I don't have direct evidence, I'm just assuming that the release and subsequent success of The Lost World: Jurassic Park (console game) and Medal of Honor (video game) (yes I know that's a redirect) would have been accompanied by significant coverage of the organisation as well as just of the games. It doesn't need to be recent coverage.

The bottom line is reader experience. If there is doubt as to whether two notable organisations, existing at different times, are really just the same organisation rebranded, then better to have two articles and link them, particularly if they have completely different names and trademarks.

And this is not off-topic. An unnecessary move just makes the already tangled article histories more enigmatic, and may even threaten the validity of our copyleft licensing. For example, text from the old stub version to which I linked may well be in current articles, and this history is in danger of being lost. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the means of notability in this case are dependant on "independent notability", regarding the necessity to split a small chunk of an article into a new one, unnecessarily creating a stub. The only information available independently of its successing names is the foundation and Stephen Spielberg being the head of it. Game releases might be covered, but they reveal little to nothing about the company itself, where also their notability is not inherited. At the end, the inflicting EA Los Angeles name would come back in place for the article, and from that point, only content that comes from this article would fills space, e.g. "later rebranded to Danger Close", "formally closed in 2013, forms DICE LA", etc. What I am trying to say is that a DreamWorks Interactive article will definetly result in a stub as there is not enough information on the company itself, and splitting three sentences off into a stub does not enhance reader experience, rather, they would be helped by being directly brought to what came out of the company PLUS what the company was. The little information we have is here, and I doubt that there is much more on it itself. By that sense, EA Los Angeles would also have to be split off into its own article, since "EA Los Angeles" and "Danger Close Games" also have extremely different names, and that change wouldn't make sense either. One of the only examples it worked for, as far as I know, was DMA Design, which has enough content to produce a good article independetly from its successing part, Rockstar North (although it is sometimes contested). We would also have to incorporate the little DWI information available into this article to express the company's origins to the readers of this article, and a separate DWI article would be a plain, stubbed copy, making it pretty much worthless. If you find more information on the company, please add it to this article instead, if it would ever manage to get at least Start-like article quality independently, we could take up this discussion again. Lordtobi (✉) 12:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with most (not all) of this, and the bits that do make sense do not seem to form a coherent argument. I could be wrong, in the future I'd recommend that you break such a long paragraph into smaller ones, to make your argument easier to read and follow. Probably best not to do it now that someone has replied, and if you do please make sure you don't make any changes to the text, that would be a serious breach of stringing and very bad manners.

There seems no shortage of relevant material on the web. A google of "DreamWorks Interactive" -Wikipedia gave me 36,700 ghits (your results may vary) many of which seem to be relevant reliable sources containing a variety of encyclopedic information.

I still see no reason to think that the DI article is doomed to remain a stub. Suggest continue discussion at Talk:DreamWorks Interactive#Suggest restore the stub. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I still don't see a reason to revive a stub that will most likely stay as such. You try to hand arguments with no evidence currently visible, the only being a Google search. Doing such gives me, on the first page, seven entries that fit WP:RS, most pages are "overview" pages which, MobyGames-esque, simply run down games developed/published by that company. Of the seven sources, four discuss development of their games (namely The Neverhood two times, Trespasser, and Medal of Honor) and do not contain any company information not already present. Another one discusses its acquisition through EA and another its opening, both of which we already have. This leaves us with just one, this one, which actually has information we should add to the article ASAP.

If you wish, you can re-create the DreamWorks article. I will keep an eye on it, and if it falls back to a stub, I will redirect it again as, in my opinion, there is no use for a stub that can be used alike in an article also regarding its post-acquisition history. Lordtobi (✉) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just complicates an already tangled tale that has led to a jumbled article structure and an unhelpful article. Sort out the proposed article structure first, then perhaps reverse the latest undiscussed move... but do sort out the desired end result first. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an "unhelpful article", but the problem expressed above should definetly have priority. Lordtobi (✉) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source