Risk of Rain Wiki: Good idea or bad?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by okok111, Jul 3, 2013.


Should there be an RoR wiki?

  1. Yes, definitely.

    50 vote(s)
  2. NO, HELL NO.

    5 vote(s)
  3. Maybe, I'm not quite sure.

    10 vote(s)
Thread Status:
This thread has not been replied to for more than 90 days.
  1. I would be more than happy to maintain a wiki for RoR, and I figured that I should ask the community if this is a good idea and the devs if I would have their permission to do so.
    Said wiki would have details on items, monsters, characters and strategies to use for each of them. It'd have details on what these items did, and it'd be open to the community to edit in the case that anyone of you had a strategy or detail to add. Oh, and it'd document bugs and give a version history.
    Comments? Oh, and there's a poll about whether you think it's a good idea to have a wiki or a bad one. If the majority agrees that we should have one and the devs give the go-ahead, I'll get to writing one and will post the link here.
    P.S Wasn't sure whether to put this is suggestions or not, I put it in discussions as it was less game-based and more "Should this happen? I could do it, but will it be used?"
    EDIT: Majority said yes, wiki is now active. LINKY: http://riskofraingame.wikia.com/wiki/Risk_of_Rain_Wiki
    • I think it'd be useful, if possibly a tiny bit early. I'd definitely use it and assist with some updates where I can.
      • The only thing preventing me from immediately supporting the idea is that by the time the game is actually finished, all the items and enemies and character abilities will be available to look at directly in the game.
        Show Spoiler
        Except those secret items that have popped up, and I'd definitely like to actually know exactly what the effects of those are. Info about stuff like secret areas too, now that I think of it.
        • I really don't think there should be a wiki before the game is officially released... but that's just an opinion. I guess it's no worse than big-name titles being released concurrently with their respective strategy guides, but that just doesn't feel right, it removes most of the discovery for the players who haven't actually gone through everything yet. Arguably, they simply don't have to go to a wiki if they don't want things spoiled, but it also removes some of the joy of new players discovering something awesome and wanting to share it, only to find out that there's a preexisting repository of everything ever, compiled by people who had the game way in advance. It just seems like it'd be more fun to wait until release and then watch the new players with no prior knowledge assemble their own wiki on their own time (mainly based on two of my favorite community-driven wikis, those being pre-Wrath BoI, and Terraria).
          • Just don't personally need such thing. I got monster and item log, other things I can discover myself or know from community.
            • I see where you are coming from, but anyone can buy into the beta so in a way the game has been released (that is, through my demented perception). I suppose that there are people that did pre-order the golden master, but in this case WE are the new players as we've bought the game through means available to the public. Also you have to consider that the point of a wiki is to share knowledge, not for the more experienced players to sit there like omniscient mutes whilst the newbies stumble their way through life.

              I am not saying that your opinion is incorrect, or the things you have stated are, but these are the reasons why I disagree with them.

              A wiki is just a repository of knowledge that is maintained by the community. (For the most part, at least). Oh, and what does the ancient wisps unique drop do? "Smite them.. Smite them all..." Doesn't really explain it. (Yes, I know what it does, I'm just using it as an example. If the item log and monster log were both complete, there would be almost no need for a wiki barring it being a useful thing to have around, but they aren't complete, and the item log doesn't explain everything anyway. What happens when you get another toxic worm? Yes, for every second worm it increases the max amount of enemies you can infect, but that isn't explained in the item log, is it?)
              Oh, and that was one LARGE amount of text in that bracket set. Probably the most I've put in one.
              • Item log aren't completed at all! This is beta. Descriptions will be written in future.
                • I understand that the item log isn't* complete, but you can't fit every detail of an item in one screen.
                  • Why are you asking for people's opinions if you're just going to argue with people who disagree and do it anyway?
                      Shrooblord and Treadlight like this.
                    • I'm not going to do it if people don't like the idea of it, I'm just sticking up for my opinion (Sorry if I'm being a little bit harsh while I'm at it). After all, the point of a wiki is for knowledge to be shared throughout the community, and if the community isn't going to use it, there isn't much point in one existing.
                      • I don't think the wiki is a really good idea. It may end up nullifying this entire subforum, and people who use it will have the whole game spoiled for them in two sentences.
                        EDIT: If you really want a wiki, I'll help with it. Mostly its organization.
                        By the way, are you planning on using Mediawiki, or wikia?
                        • I see. I was planning on either using wikia (For the handy-dandy categories) or wikispaces. Haven't heard of mediawiki, I'll have a look at it. Anyways, I can see how you think. I don't REALLY REALLY REALLY want to make a wiki to the point I'd blatantly ignore the rest of the community, if more than 50% of the community don't want it I won't do it, and if more than 50% of the community agree with the idea of a wiki I will.
                          Boy, I sure do love polls.
                          EDIT: About mediawiki, I don't really have a server farm, nor do I expect the wiki to get millions of hits a day, so that isn't really an option, oh, and I forgot about shout wiki. That might be an idea.
                          • You don't need to look at the wiki and have your experience spoilt; I'll give you an example of my own:
                            In the Binding of Isaac, whenever I get a new item, I'll first try to figure out what it does by running around with it and seeing what it does for me. If after my death I'm still unsure about its usage, I consult the wiki. I avoid everything that could spoil me and only look at the one item of my interest.
                              okok111 and Rawrquaza like this.
                            • That's what I do, too. It's just that it also links to other random pages by name and with an image.
                              • If it's a straight "50% of the community agree/disagree" deal, then putting an "I'm not quite sure" option just seems like a very politician thing to do to... I've seen way too many instances of voting-booth polls including a "no opinion" option so that whoever leveled the question can lump it with their preference when everything is tallied up.

                                Sure, if those 5 votes were simply removed altogether, the number of people for a wiki would be winning, but indecision is such an effortless, zero-liability, and manipulable path and makes for muddy polling when "yes" or "no" are the deciding options for an action to be taken.

                                Just an observation for future polls to take into consideration.
                                • I suppose so, I'll keep that in mind for next time I do a poll. I'd go into why I did it this way, but for the most part it's just the system that I'm used to.
                                  • It's at 50%.... To wiki or not to wiki? I've got most of the character and item sprites we'll need. Now I guess I should ask the devs directly.
                                    • hopoo

                                      hopoo Risk of Rain Developer Developer

                                      I swear there was a wiki already, but it wasn't very good :alien: .

                                      I personally like looking at wikis for games (if its something I'm interested in but don't have the time to play, I like looking at all the cool monsters and bosses). I don't think a wiki would split the community, since it is primarily a resource tool and secondarily a board. Not only that, but I think most people would walk into a wiki knowing that they would get spoiled.

                                      It also makes a game look better if there is a wiki :) but it's all up to you. A bunch of things may change between now and release though, so you'll end up redoing a lot (or maybe thats a task for non-beta people!)
                                        Rawrquaza likes this.
                                      • Actually, there were two. One was the unofficial wiki, one was just called the wiki (both have ~10 pages), so we're going to have a lot of trouble coming up with a name. Anyways, I have no problem re-doing a ton of stuff, and I'm sure some other members of the community will help me with bits and pieces. And also, YAY, someone else shares my habit of wiki-reading for games I can't play :rofl: .
                                        I'll post a link to it in the OP when it's up, but either way, thanks for the go-ahead. Hopefully within the next couple of days it will be at the point that it's something to look at.
                                        • Got some templates up, Getting pictures and categories next.
                                          If anybody would like to help by adding pages, that'd be much appreciated.
                                          You can find the wiki.... Here.
                                          Thread Status:
                                          This thread has not been replied to for more than 90 days.

                                          Share This Page