From Pikipedia, the Pikmin wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This video shows some comparisons between the time it takes for different numbers and status Pikmin to clear various obstacles in Pikmin 2. It might be helpful when we get around to trying to understand how Pikmin numbers and statuses affect obstacle speed. — {EspyoT} 17:29, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Add Hey! Pikmin obstacles ?[edit]

I'm wondering if I could add obstacles from Hey! Pikmin, and update the informations for some of them (for instance, there is electric gates in Hey! Pikmin, at least 1). Hugik (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Sure thing! You can probably write the links to icon images, even if they don't exist, so that they get uploaded one day. — {EspyoT} 14:00, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
Ok, so I think I'll do this ! Thanks ! Hugik (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Articles for Heavy Obstacle and High Ledge?[edit]

This article's big list has links to specific pages about all of the obstacles, with the exception of 3 items in the list: 'Buried treasure, fruit, or Sparklium Seeds', 'High ledges', and 'Purple Pikmin needed'. While the first one's link to the Dig article works, the other 2 deserve articles in my opinion. An article for Heavy obstacle could talk about the required use of Purple Pikmin to push down the paper bag in the Awakening Wood, as well as collecting the Spherical Atlas, Geographic Projection, and Doomsday Apparatus (as they are obstacles to completing the game). While the Purple Pikmin article already has a list of mandatory uses, these uses are tied to the obstacle of heavy weights, just as the mandatory uses of Yellow Pikmin are tied to electricity or high ledges, and the mandatory uses of Blue Pikmin are tied to water. An article for High ledge would be even more useful, as several ship parts, treasures, and fruits are made harder to access by being too high for most types to reach, and this is an obstacle with enough information to describe it, especially considering the various exploits to bypass the height barrier. Do these topics deserve their own articles, or is their current coverage good enough? - Soprano (talk) 18:49, July 12, 2020 (EDT)

I'm starting to debate if they should even count in the first place. An obstacle should be something that is in the way of your goal, so I guess something being too heavy to carry normally, or too high to reach can count as an obstacle. But if we define obstacles as actual objects, then the notions of weight and height don't really count. I think it's fine to keep them, but there is merit in getting rid of them too. Anyway, I think simply linking to the Purple Pikmin and Yellow Pikmin articles for those two "obstacles" is enough... There is nothing that can be said about heavy obstacles that isn't explained in the Purple Pikmin article, and if the reader wants a list of such obstacles, they have the recommended and mandatory uses listed in that same article. Same goes for high ledges and Yellow Pikmin. — {EspyoT} 07:18, July 16, 2020 (EDT)

Obstacles and Objects[edit]

I think that the term "obstacle" is now being used too broadly. An obstacle (according to this article's introduction) is something that stands in the way of Pikmin and leaders and (generally) must be overcome to access another part of the area. But many things in the list of obstacles do not fit this definition. Bouncy Mushrooms, conveyor belts, electrodes, and lily pads are not literally obstacles. While some tasks require them to be switched on in order to access another part of the area, this is not always the case. I think that the term "obstacle" is being used too broadly on this wiki, and we should be using "object" instead to describe these kinds of things. "Object" is a handy term that can be used to describe all kinds of interactable objects, which seems to be the main thing that distinguishes the items on the list already – they are objects in areas that can be interacted with that are not enemies or collectibles. The term could also be used more broadly to describe things like bomb rocks and nectar weed. In fact, nearly everything in all areas is either an enemy, collectible, object, or part of the background scenery. I don't think the term "obstacle" shouldn't be used at all, as many objects are definitely obstacles, and I think there should be an article for Obstacle on this wiki. But I think that this article should be renamed to Object, and we should change the terminology around these things across Pikipedia. — Soprano(talk) 19:25, June 30, 2021 (EDT)

I definitely think we should improve the definitions a lot. Though I don't agree with the term "object". In game development, an object can be anything from something the player can pick up, to literally everything that populates the game world and isn't terrain; Pikmin games use the latter IIRC. So not only is "object" too vague, but since everything is an object, obstacles are just a subset of objects. There must be a better term here... — {EspyoT} 14:11, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
"Interactive object" could work, but sounds a bit silly, and not all obstacles are interactive. Perhaps a solution could be to distinguish between obstacles and non-obstacle interactive objects (like Flukeweeds or seesaw blocks). — Soprano(talk) 03:44, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
I'll try to come up with a subjective classification system, categorizing the things currently listed on this article as either "obstacles" or "interactive objects".
As you can see, there's a fair bit of ambiguity and subjectivity. I'd even argue that boulders and icicle crystals aren't even obstacles, they're just hazards. Most of the ambiguous items are ambiguous because they are connected to an obstacle without being an obstacle on their own, or have the potential to be either obstacles or not obstacles. While it makes sense to separate non-obstacle interactive objects from the other obstacles, is it worth doing if the result would lead to so many ambiguities? Or is there another way to define these kinds of objects with less ambiguity? — Soprano(talk) 20:54, September 24, 2021 (EDT)
Hazards define an abstract danger. Impaling is a hazard, but the icicle crystals are physical objects. So defining those as hazards isn't right, IMO.
Maybe the problem is that we're trying to categorize things that shouldn't be categorized. After all, I don't think even the games themselves make any distinction. Sure, some obstacles are internally enemies because it's easier to code them for things like HP and all, but other than that, things are just "objects" and that's all. Maybe the page should be about interactive objects, and then we can split them subjectively in a clear, non-technical way, like dangerous objects, helpful objects, objects that are in the way of carrier Pikmin, etc. — {EspyoT} 12:28, September 30, 2021 (EDT)
Ooh, that's a good idea. Let's try to classify the list again.
This system works a lot better and is more useful: it separates the traditional obstacles (the "Barriers" category) from other types of objects that can get in the way or interactive things that are part of the environment. But it's not perfect, as evidenced by the fact that I couldn't categorize everything in the list and had to put some things into an "Other" category (though after doing this, I don't think fragments or crystal nodules should count as obstacles). Plus, some of the categories are a bit weird. Could this kind of categorization be done better? — Soprano(talk) 20:34, September 30, 2021 (EDT)
Let me try. Also I'd say high ledges and stuff like that is just a concept, not an object, so I'm fine with getting rid of them.
  • Barriers: same, but include P3 paper bag, Kingcap, clipboard, and dam. Basically anything static (as in, it doesn't move on its own) that stays in the way of some goal and does nothing else.
  • Dangerous obstacles: Arachnode web, electrical wire, fire geyser, flames, gas pipe, water, hydroe bramble. Basically anything static that can be dangerous.
  • Traps: boulder, icicle crystal. Basically, anything dynamic that goes out of its way to cause harm.
  • Containers: crystals, Spotcap, dirt mound, flukeweed, egg. Basically anything that can (not always) contain something good inside.
  • Puzzle elements: same. Basically, anything whose purpose in the gameplay, and in the world, is to just provide some puzzle challenge.
  • Transporter: Bouncy Mushroom, geyser, lily pad. Basically, anything that transports Pikmin and leaders elsewhere.
  • Tools: climbing stick, conveyor belt, fragments, hay, iron ball. Basically anything that serves no purpose other than to be exploited by the Pikmin to reach some goal.
  • Breakable objects: Burgeoning Spiderwort mold, crystal nodule.
I feel like it's not there yet, but I think this is going to be an iterative thing. It'll go through many iterations till we reach something that makes sense. — {EspyoT} 17:10, October 5, 2021 (EDT)
I really like your "Traps" and "Dangerous obstacles" categories; they're definitely useful, and the rest of the categories are in the right direction. But there are a few difficult things to categorize.
Some of the most difficult are Spotcaps/Kingcaps and small/large crystals. On their own, they are rarely barriers, but are often found in groups that act as barriers. But it's never the case that you have to destroy all of the mushrooms/crystals in the group, just some of them. Plus, they can all hold items. So that's why I put them in a separate category, since their functions are so broad and different from everything else.
The "Puzzle objects" category is also a difficult one, because its objects can serve as barriers, but also tools and transporters. Most obstacles can be puzzles in some way, it's just that the puzzle objects are more like puzzles. Is it a useful category?
There's also the issue of associated objects: objects that are tied together. Here we have electrodes and Bloominous Stemples, iron balls and stone walls, fragments and bridges, and more minor things like conveyor belt switches and conveyor belts. Perhaps it would be worth putting every object whose only purpose is activating other objects into another category, such as "Activators". Though, almost every object in this category has some other function than just activating. Do we focus on the main function of each obstacle in categorization, or all its functions?
Some other notes: The clipboard is more of a container, except in the 1 instance where it acts as a bridge. It could also be worthwhile having a category for objects that are associated with enemies (the Arachnode web, Burgeoning Spiderwort mold, and crystal nodule). — Soprano(talk) 17:53, October 5, 2021 (EDT)
I feel like there's something that describes the likes of Spotcaps, crystal nodules, clipboards, etc. -- objects with barely any interactivity other than being in the way and being able to be destroyed or cleared, but their purpose comes from how they are used in the area design. If we can figure out what it is, I think we can create a very important new category. We're probably better off getting rid of puzzles like you said. "Activators" is a bit of a technical view on things, which I don't think is a good idea. I think all objects should be documented, even if they're just a part of something greater (e.g. fragments to bridges), even if that means they are both part of different categories. I think a category for enemy objects would actually make sense! More enemies have associated objects, like a Breadbug's nest, and the "enemy object" (name pending) category sounds like a regular good category, since the reader can right away understand these type of objects don't do much by themselves, and are used as tools by enemies to achieve their goals. — {EspyoT} 15:25, October 9, 2021 (EDT)
OK, so here's where we're at now:
Something else to note: we also need to consider which category each of the minor obstacles fits into. — Soprano(talk) 21:00, October 9, 2021 (EDT)
Ok, new approach -- I'll just list categories from the top of my head without thinking of the objects themselves. Really just think about what sorts of objects one can find in the series, and how the average reader would think of them. We'd have barriers, dangerous obstacles, traps, devices, enemy objects, destructible flora/fauna/minerals, wildlife that can be stood on/rode on/jumped on. I...think we might be able to categorize everything in to all of these? And yes, minor obstacles should be included too. — {EspyoT} 13:23, October 11, 2021 (EDT)
That new approach is interesting, and has reminded me of how the obstacle's treatment in gameplay should be the main factor in its categorization. In particular, your vegetation-related categories are worth including, particularly considering most articles on these objects first describe them as special vegetation, not obstacles. So perhaps we could have a category for interactive vegetation, including the Bouncy Mushroom, lily pad, Kingcap, Spotcap, and Bloominous Stemple? Though, this would be moving away from gameplay-related categorization. It's a difficult problem. Also, if were to split up the list into all these subcategories, could the minor obstacles be included on the same list, though still documented in sections rather than articles? — Soprano(talk) 20:53, October 19, 2021 (EDT)

Newer approach[edit]

Ok, how about we forget the really specific categorization? Let's stick to the basics.

  • Obstacle: Anything whose existence actively hinders the player in their pursuit of a goal.
  • Tool: Anything whose existence can be used by the player to help in their pursuit of a goal.

We might be able to lump everything into these two categories. I don't think there's anything that's ambiguous. Even objects that kinda apply to both will have one they apply much more to (e.g. cardboard boxes can be climbed on top of, but they're mainly in the way). From these two categories, we can sub-divide further. Or just stay with this two-way categorization. Also yeah, minor obstacles would be included in the list like any other entry, but since there isn't much to say about them, their info should still just be confined to a section. — {EspyoT} 15:10, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Alright, now that Pikmin Bloom has been out for a few months, it's time to return to this discussion. I think that simpler classification is great – it's effectively going back to the "Obstacles"/"Interactive objects" distinction that this discussion started with, but with better terminology. And it also provides a way to classify objects that are not interactive yet are also not a part of the basic scenery. Let's see how this categorization attempt goes:
That only leaves one unclear case: is a bridge an obstacle or a tool? I think this system works great otherwise. — Soprano(talk) 00:05, March 10, 2022 (EST)
Great! Yeah, a bridge is kinda both, huh... But I guess if we think about it practically, the water body is the obstacle, the bridge is a tool used to surpass that obstacle. I vote for bridges being tools. This logic can also probably be applied to other cases, like water sac vs fire, high ledge vs Bouncy Mushroom, etc. That said, we might be able to further sub-divide, or at least sub-divide the obstacle list. Maybe between man-made and natural? Or between harmful and simply "in the way"? — {EspyoT} 17:07, March 19, 2022 (EDT)
Well, more important than the subdivision of the list is the process by which this article will be split. There are a lot of pages that link to the Obstacle article, mostly due to the row in Template:Infobox area, and also all the images and templates for the different types of obstacles/tools. Splitting the article in two would require updating the area infobox template and all the pages that use it, which would be a lot of work. We'd also have to consider what to do about Template:Obstacles (perhaps it could be used for both), and there are likely other things that would have to be changed. So there's a lot to do; how should we go about this? — Soprano(talk) 19:19, March 19, 2022 (EDT)
I'd honestly recommend we start from a clean slate on this. As more Pikmin games get released, we can't keep accumulating technical debt by lumping everything as an "obstacle". We should start splitting now, which means fixing everything, including all of those links. I actually don't think there are that many. — {EspyoT} 11:06, March 20, 2022 (EDT)
Alright, so what's the process for doing this?
  1. Create a new Tool article, very similar to the Obstacle article, but with only the tools in the table.
  2. Remove all the tools from the table in the Obstacle article.
  3. Either split or rename the Minor obstacles article.
  4. Reorganize Template:Obstacles.
  5. Create a new parameter in Template:Infobox area, and go through all 63 area articles to use the parameter.
  6. Go to all articles about tools and update their language.
  7. Later, go though the images and templates for obstacle icons and recategorize them.
That should be doable over a few days, right? I'm fine with doing most of it (though it would be good if you could help with the area articles). — Soprano(talk) 17:17, March 20, 2022 (EDT)

Icons in infobox[edit]

I think we might be able to do with the minor obstacles/tools article what we did with the minor planets one. Other than that, I'm honestly considering removing the hazard, obstacle, and tool icons from the infobox in the first place. They're not really useful information at all. They're useful for caves, because it's a nice way for readers to quickly know what types of Pikmin to bring into a cave, but for areas, all Pikmin are always accessible, so this is moot. It's hard to upkeep, it makes the infobox messier, and it's not helpful. And with this new obstacle format change, it'll just give us unwanted work. Other than that, the process is pretty much that. — {EspyoT} 15:31, March 21, 2022 (EDT)

That would be a significant change. We already removed hazard icons from area infoboxes a year ago, but removing obstacles (and not adding tools) would remove a significant part of the infobox. Then again, area object lists already have a list of these objects, and I doubt having icons in the infobox would help people that much? But I'm not sure about that, and we should probably find some way to ask people about whether they're useful before removing them. Either way, we'd have to edit all area articles anyway to split the obstacle list. — Soprano(talk) 16:58, March 21, 2022 (EDT)
It's not like infoboxes need to be big, so I think it's fine to remove them. We will have to go through each article, but removing the obstacles is a quick and mindless process, whereas adding more icons will take a lot of effort. And at the end of the day, like I said, having those lists is not really useful. I didn't mention before but yes, part of the decision also leans on the fact that the object lists will make sure to inform players of what exists, so there's no reason for the infobox to have them. As for asking around, the icons might be one of those things people don't even notice that they notice... Dunno. — {EspyoT} 16:25, March 22, 2022 (EDT)
Sure, but I don't think it's a good idea to remove something that potentially some people liked to use. It's not that much extra effort to split a row in the infobox, compared to splitting the object list. Perhaps the best option is to just make the obstacle row in the infobox optional, so there's no obligation to use it in articles about areas in future games. — Soprano(talk) 17:18, March 23, 2022 (EDT)
Dunno, I still don't think the infoboxes need obstacle/tool icons. And the idea of cleaning the existing articles, but not enforcing the icons for new area articles for future games further reinforces the message that we don't believe the icons to be necessary, but we'd just be updating them on existing articles "just for the sake of it". This adds some definitely-not-zero cost to editors, in exchange for something that we feel is unnecessary to the reader (and I also agree it's unnecessary to the reader). Plus, it adds some secret costs too, like how in adding some missing icons to an infobox, we may realize this or that icon has no file on the wiki, and that requires somebody to go draw it and upload it...all for a feature that we'll discontinue eventually, and are keeping for no reason. Add to that the object list section in an article thing, and I strongly vote for the removal of obstacle/tool icons on the infobox. — {EspyoT} 10:58, May 21, 2022 (EDT)
Hmm, OK, I can see that point. While I might try temporarily implementing it in a couple of articles anyway just to see how it looks, I'm fine with removing them as part of this project. What will happen to the 61 obstacle button templates, will they be deleted once this project is done? — Soprano(talk) 18:20, June 1, 2022 (EDT)
(Never noticed this response) The icons are still used, but the templates can go. — {EspyoT} 11:53, March 5, 2023 (EST)

Doing the split[edit]

This discussion has sat unfinished for months, and I think it's about time we finish it, since Pikmin 4 is coming out in only a few months. If we want to split obstacles and tools on the wiki, we should do it soon, before the new game comes out and introduces a bunch of new obstacles and tools. How should we go about doing this? — Soprano(talk) 03:49, February 28, 2023 (EST)

Agreed. I'd say let's just go for it:
  1. Create Tool and Minor tools.
  2. Move all tools to those articles.
  3. Remove the icons from the infobox.
  4. Create Template:Tools.
  5. Move all tools there from Template:Obstacles.
Not sure if I'm missing anything. — {EspyoT} 11:53, March 5, 2023 (EST)
These tasks have now been done! I've started the process of editing area articles to removed the unused parameters and split the object lists, but there's still a lot to do. There's also one obstacle/tool I'm not sure of its classification: the clog. Is it an obstacle because you destroy it, or is it a tool because it gets rid of the water? — Soprano(talk) 02:47, March 13, 2023 (EDT)
This seems to be a mostly two-person conversation, so forgive me if my input is in the way here, but I would argue that the clog should remain an obstacle, as it can still block progress even without water to drain, in areas like the Submerged Castle. --

AmnesiacUser avatar for User:Amnesiacjournal.Journal 20:32, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

That's a good point. I think it's fine to leave it on either one. I've also edited both the obstacle and tool articles to mention, right in the opening paragraphs, that some of them can sometimes be considered like the opposite type due to their dynamic nature. So readers should feel comfortable with the current organization. — {EspyoT} 11:44, March 18, 2023 (EDT)