On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At first glance, that article has a lot of OR in it.
It would be a
great article if at least we could point to bulletin boards, forums,
wikis, or whatever proving that people (other than Wikipedians) have
spent time analysing this character and trying to determine who he is
or what he does. Then the article could be more on the social
phenomenon. There are occasional fleeting references to "the half life
community" or "fans of the game", but surprisingly, no links can be
given to substantiate that these debates have actually taken place.
In a word: this article is a perfect example of where blogs and forums
*should* be cited, if only as primary sources.
Citing the game itself is probably the wrong direction to be going here.
Why can't we cite games though? I'm sensing a distinct dislike of
citing anything not easily represented in textual form. Obscure books
and monographs impossible for anyone to get ahold of? Sure. A
multi-million copy selling game whose cutscenes and game events are
not easily cited? No way.