Talk:UFO 50

Request for deletion and notability

I would like to ask exactly what criteria for "notability" this page isn't meeting. This is one of the most monumental indie game projects ever undertaken: the creation of 50 fully fledged new indie games by some of the most reputed creators in the industry. The article itself has citations for every single claim through over a dozen secondary, independent sources. Weltall Zero (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto what Weltall Zero said, notability on Wikipedia, from my understanding, mainly comes from being covered by prominent secondary sources. UFO 50 has been mentioned by websites such as Eurogamer, GamesRadar, and RockPaperShotgun. If these sites are not reputable or notable enough, could you possibly direct me to websites that are? -E (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Weltall Zero and @Gisrhgver, you can object to this proposed deletion by simply removing the template. (But the proposer might then formally nominate it for deletion). Charcoal feather (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the template. This game is notable, both in worldly terms, and by the standards of Wikipedia. I do not anticipate that any formal nomination will be made, and I would in any case find such a nomination to be groundless. -Ramzuiv (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Bad Link, IDK how to remove a redirect

Hey, I just noticed the link for "Eirik Suhrke" in the dev list redirects to Ridiculous Fishing (a game he worked on) rather than a page about the dude himself.

IDK how to fix it, but I figured I'd point it out for anyone who does.

-Ratstail91 2001:8003:34D9:3900:FC03:A07B:64DA:3704 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, currently his name resirects to that article, but given he's worked on other projects it definitely shouldn't anymore. XeCyranium (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The game list

Currently the game list has a citation needed tag appended to it, though I believe there's nothing wrong with sourcing it to the game itself. This list made me wonder if the 51st game should be mentioned, or if a "secret" title is too trivial to be included in the article. Does anybody have a strong opinion either way on mentioning Miasma Tower separately? https://www.pcgamer.com/games/action/unsurprisingly-ufo-50-seems-to-have-a-big-secret-meta-game-that-ive-only-just-scratched-the-surface-of/ This article focuses on the extra game, so if there aren't objections I'd use it as a ref for including mention. XeCyranium (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Miasma Tower should be included in the list of games, because it is a game in the collection. -Ramzuiv (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirects for individual games

Would it be reasonable to create redirects to the "List of games in UFO 50" section of the page for some, or at least some of the more notable individual games? PROPLAYEN (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be any issue, at least for the bigger or more notable games (e.g. Porgy, Grimstone, Night Manor, etc.). So feel free to do that, for any games that it feels appropriate for. -Ramzuiv (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Descriptions for games

I think it would be appropriate to describe (at least some of) the games in more detail. I'm a bit unsure of the best way to do that. I'm thinking of having a "Games" section, with a description of each game. It makes sense that the description of each game should be proportional to the scale or subjective notability / memorability of each game. But aiming for around one paragraph for each game on average, with longer or shorter descriptions as warranted.

One concern with this approach is that the section will end up being quite long. But I figure that's fine, because the purpose of an article is to describe its subject matter, and UFO 50 cannot reasonably be described without describing each of the 50 (or more?) games that it comprises.

I will move forward now with writing some descriptions, prioritizing the most notable games (and maybe some that I'm just in the mood to write about). I propose ordering the games in the fictional "chronological" order, which is also the numbers assigned to each game within the game itself. If you have any objections or considerations, please do mention them. - Ramzuiv (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've now made short descriptions for some (34%) of the games. I haven't gone to the lengths of citing any references (yeah, this technically is "original research" right now). But everything that I've written should be verifiable either from 3rd party sources, or (at least in some cases) can be referenced to the game itself. I'm not actually sure what the rules are for when the game itself can be used as the source. But, for example, the alternate styling for Combatants, or the poem in Night Manor, those can certainly just reference the game itself. I figure claims such as about the engines for Campanella 1 and 2, or the references in Grimstone to Texas, that probably needs an external reference, even if they are somewhat obvious just from playing the game.

But my point is, the new section is currently missing citations. If anyone can help attach citations to the various statements, that would be appreciated. Most statements can be sourced from the sources already present on this page, or from the podcast "The Secret Lives of Games", specifically their series "A Year of UFO 50". If you need help identifying sources for any statements, just let me know and I'll see if I can help out with that. But right now I'll be focusing on getting more descriptions written, and perhaps improving some of the written descriptions (though I don't currently have any improvements in mind). - Ramzuiv (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've started including a few screenshots from the game. So far only one, but I'll include a few more. I don't think there should be ones for every game, just a few of them, especially those with a particularly distinctive graphical style (plus a small number that illustrate how the typical game looks). (If you are curious, see the file pages for the fair use rationale.) Ramzuiv (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think having this many descriptions for the games (especially when none of them have citations!) is incredibly excessive. Discussion about how different games work is warranted, but not at this scale. A good comparison in my mind for what this page should have is something like what certain album pages have when going over individual songs, e.g. Getting Killed#Songs. Each song only gets a few sentences at most, and it's entirely based on what critics have said about them. Because there are so many games, many of the less notable ones might only warrant offhand mentions (e.g. 'Puzzle games in the collection include...'); some might not need mentioning at all.

The 'Themes' section also needs sources. If there are no independent sources, it shouldn't be here - keep it to a fan wiki instead. Drywalling (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll just quickly note that already many games are not mentioned in the "Games" section beyond the table that briefly lists all games.

I'm not sure I agree with "Discussion about how different games work is [not warranted] at this scale". UFO 50 is fundamentally a collection of 50 different games - that is to say, fifty distinct, disjoint works of art, many of which have quite an expansive scope. A game like Grimstone, Porgy, or Night Manor, if it was released as a standalone work by Mossmouth would be very likely to warrant an entire article on this encyclopedia. But because they are packaged together as UFO 50, they are presently confined to this one article.

I don't really consider the page you linked to as an amazing example of what we should aim for. Even if one were to grant that a collection of games is similar in nature to a music album (something I don't think I agree with), reading Getting Killed#Songs just feels very messy. One song's description flows into the next in a way that is hard to keep track of. Maybe that's appropriate for a music album, but it's a very poor format for a collection of 50 distinct works of art, each with its own unique identity and clear walls between each experience.

I also feel that Getting Killed#Songs is actually poorly written insofar as it is overly reliant on what critics say about the album. Both for UFO 50 and any music album, the subject matter of a Wikipedia article is the work of art itself, not what critics say about the work of art. Yes, Wikipedia likes secondary sources (and you are right to point out that the current UFO 50 page, particularly the sections I recently added, are presently lacking in secondary sources), but the article should focus on telling the reader what the subject is like, and not what people say the subject is like. The first is objective, and the second is subjective - and therefore less well-suited for the objective nature of an encyclopedia.

The right application of secondary sources is to verify that any given description is both true and not original research. But descriptions that are not objectively true should only be present - if at all - to a limited degree, and should not form the backbone of such a section. And if such descriptions are objectively true, then it is inappropriate to focus on who first said that description. Just say the objectively true statement, and let the reference marker point to who said it prior to it being on Wikipedia. In my opinion, Getting Killed#Songs is a poor exemplar for that reason, and I want this page to be better than that.

- Ramzuiv (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I know many games aren't mentioned in the Games section; it's still too long.

Albums are also fundamentally collections of distinct, often disjoint works. Songs from an album often have enough to be said about them that they warrant their own entire pages (see Trinidad, Au Pays du Cocaine, Taxes). That doesn't mean that when covering the album, each song needs to be talked about with as much depth as it would receive on its own page. (To be clear, I do think that it would be understandable for a section covering each game here to be at least somewhat longer than Getting Killed#Songs. That covers 11 songs, this is meant to cover 50 games.)

Again, an album is also often a collection of distinct works of art, 'each with its own unique identity and clear walls between each experience'. It's not 100% analogous to a collection of games, but I think it's certainly comparable. I don't see how the way descriptions flow together is hard to keep track of, each song's description is clearly signposted by its title.

The point of Getting Killed#Songs' reliance on secondary sources is to identify what information about each track is worth mentioning. Sure, it *could* mention details such as each track's length, lyrical themes, melody, drumming, etc., but that's not always important enough to mention, at least not immediately. (Equally here: is it necessary for people to know, say, that Barbuta was directed by Eirik Suhrke, when it's already mentioned further down the page? That Paint Chase has an extra lives mechanic? What Magic Garden's precise win condition is?) If secondary sources are talking about it - especially multiple secondary sources - then you can be sure that it's notable.

"I want this page to be better than that" - FWIW, Getting Killed is classed as a good article, lol. If you want to just describe the game's mechanics, then sure, quote secondary sources less than that page does, but I think a section documenting each game should be more than just that. Games and songs are more than just their technical information. Drywalling (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Egg Theme

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and wanted some feedback on possibly removing this section. I was looking for a citation for the recurring egg theme, and The Secret Lives of Games podcast (mentioned in the "Game Descriptions" topic) asked the devs this question directly around the 1:26:30 mark. From their response, the eggs just seem to be a coincidence. Even if it is an instance of the devs being coy about Miasma Tower references, it may not be relevant enough for the article itself. Snailofsorts (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)