Does Not Illustrate: One Game For The Price Of Two

Pokémon is too good an example to let bureaucracy shoot it down, and the Oracles are too not an example to stay on the page.

Incidentally, the image quality on the Pokémon Red and Blue page is pretty bad, now I see it, and it's got a watermark, so I went ahead and made a nicer one. Old version:

edited 15th Oct '16 2:13:47 PM by shigmiya64

Hail Mary post. Two collages of Pokémon red and Blue, both distinct from the one on the game page.

edited 25th Oct '16 6:03:30 PM by shigmiya64

Still too similar.

What about a scan of an ad? Or a side by side comparison of title screens? Maybe even a picture of one of the guides, which directly demonstrate the lack of version differences?

edited 27th Oct '16 5:31:51 AM by Kexruct

I kind of reject the assertion that the Oracles aren't an example, anyway, especially when they're right there in the example list. "Variant", sure, so not the straightest example, but this insistence it has to be a Pokémon image is a little too narrowly-focused - and again, will cause us problems with image overlap with the game pages.

Battle Network was suggested, wasn't it? What about that?

Honestly pretty much anything other than the Oracle games seems like it'd be appropriate.

I agree that the current image (the Zelda Oracle games) does not properly represent the trope.

Here is a suggestion:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/telefang/images/5/5e/Telefang_2_logo.gif/revision/latest?cb=20100430115335

This is an image of the box arts of Telefang 2 Power version and Telefang 2 Speed version.

Unless it happens to be the case that the Telefang games (and specifically Telefang 2) are really that popular to have another page using this image, I think this will suffice to avoid the conflicts of image-terest that comes from using the Pokémon games.

If you don't like this, then I'd say the Pokémon X and Y box art also works well, along with replacing the X and Y page art.

edited 1st Nov '16 12:22:52 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

Any of those seen fine to me, though I worry if we change the image on another page we've opened up a big 'ol can of more bureaucracy. Telefang works fine as an example in my book mainly to just get the entirely nonillustrative current image off.

Except, y'know, it is illustrative, it's just not the straightest example. It's still better than nothing.

Any other box art is just as illustrative, no more, no less, unless you can actually show the content of the games is connected in the way the trope describes.

But there's a straighter example out there. Multiple straighter examples, for that matter.

The page image isn't just supposed to illustrate the trope; it should do it in a memorable, iconic way, not a way that can be confused with other intentions or misunderstandings.

In fact, if the two games are different games, it actually contradicts the very first paragraph of the trope's description:

For games like the Zelda Oracle and Golden Sun games, you're meant to buy both games yourself. You're not meant to just trade items/mons/whatever with other people who own the game — which is the strict definition of the trope.

The Zelda Oracle and Golden Sun games are a variant of this trope, but not the core trope.

edited 4th Nov '16 1:06:34 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

I reeeally disagree that the picture is illustrative. It only works for those unfamiliar with how the particular games worked, and for any who are it immediately created confusion as to what the trope entails.

And this is actually a serious problem because the page image is supposed to deliver the gist of the trope rather than create confusion.

Would the two games that collectively make up Metal Gear Solid V work as a composite for the image?

I haven't played either of those games, but based on their work page descriptions, they seem to have the same problem as the Zelda games — the two games are actually a duology (which VideoGame.Metal Gear Solid V agrees on) and don't fit the description on the One Game for the Price of Two page.

edited 16th Nov '16 3:21:58 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Then perhaps this needs a pass through TRS first, as the given examples don't match the description.

Would an image like this◊ work?

How about a chart that shows different pokemon exclusive to pairs of games like this◊ or this◊?

Seems like it assumes a bit of knowledge about the workings of Pokemon; direct juxtaposition should, in this case, emphasize similarity of the game(s) to better illustrate the trope.

I think 6.2◊ works very well. It is clear and easy to understand.

Otherwise keep the current Zelda image, Even if it isn't an accurate example it shows the trope meaning quite well and the 'sold separately' in the bottom is a great addition.

I really feel like this trope needs a rename. Seems less "one game for the price of two" (which to me sounds like Sonic 3 & Knuckles or the complete Zelda: Oracle of [Noun] experience) and more "variant-exclusive content" (two variants of the same game on the same console, slight differences between them), which is partly why this trope keeps coming up in here.

That's a matter for TRS, at any rate I quite like 6.2.

6.2

My problem with 6.2 and any of the ones that just show two boxes is that it lacks the context that shows the trope.

I could slap together two boxes from the same series and with a similar name scheme and imply that this trope applies even if it doesn't. In my opinion there should be something that shows the connection between the games. Not that I can think of any clear way to do so.

edited 27th Nov '16 9:01:15 PM by Daefaroth

They have the same number (4) and similar box art. It has context.