Talk:Item

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Definition[edit]

Items dont have to have a good benefit. An item can just be some object in the game that you can pick up, but is not particularly useful. I would define an item as a usable item in comptuer and video games. Power-ups are items that have are beneficial and have an instant effect. Items generally have to be activated at the request of the player. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it a little bit. Wrote a small bit about how items aren't always good.--Drat (Talk) 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some games do have negative items, which is worth mentioning. But I don't know about "generally having to be activated" from the sources I've seen though. As you say, power-ups ARE items. I think this article should cover the most general usage. That said, I do think items have to have some use or effect in order to be items. I could be wrong on that point, but if you've ever played old fashioned computer adventure games, you can generally pick up anything that's not nailed down -- rocks, car keys, breath mints, anything. Often you can pick up stuff that's completely useless, in order to add to challenge of figuring out what you can use and how to use it. I'm not sure I've ever really "item" to describe that sort of stuff, but again, I might be wrong. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through my own memory I dont realyl recall using item for a "useless" object. As long as the object can be used for somethign, whether it is good bad or neutral, it is an item IMO. We need more input on whether it has to be activiated or is an instant. Are power-ups types of items or completely mutally exclusive? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an easy answer. To give powerups as an example: In Quake II single player, powerups like Quad Damage and Invulnerability can be picked up and used later (unlike in Quake where they are instant). In multiplayer however (from memory), the default is that powerups are instant. Would that make Quad Damage an item in one mode and not in another? I think Item and Powerup may need to be merged. The difference isn't so black and white.--Drat (Talk) 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're in need of more opinions, we can discuss or poll on the computer and video games Wikiproject. But in the end we should probably defer to what's most commonly used in the most reliable print sources: game magazines, instruction books, hint guides, and games themselves. My opinion is officially, "item" is most commonly used as a general term for all useable game objects, and that it makes the most sense to have an article on the general term. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would classify power-up , an item that has some charactersitics like working as an isntant. also, is power-up both a noun and an adjective when it's used in terms of items? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article should really discuss types of items, so when instant effect items are mentioned, it would probably be worth saying these are sometimes called power-ups... but I've also noticed some game manuals which use power-up and item interchangably, so it should probably also be considered an alterate term for 'item' in the most general sense. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 12:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this even be in Wikipedia? It doesn't have any reliable sources and would probably be better off in Wikitionary. Garth of NEaB 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling?[edit]

What is "between" items? Till now, I used "element". My GUI model consist of "item"s. When I put a GUI model item into another item (button into a panel, or so), there is the possibility of direct insertion, but there is also the possibility of additional _optional_ "constraint"(s?) (Layout position ... Java). So, till now I used "element" (being an item ... derived class), consisting of the (sub-)item and the additional Layout position constraint, when I wanted to "constrain" the insertion. But sadly, now I need to have a super-class for "model", *model-item", and other ("model-action", maybe more later) for which I used "element" in other modeling modules (Model, 3D Model). As "Object" is already defined in Java, I would very much like to not use "GUIModelObject". Anyone a good (design? pattern?) idea; or else maybe know, where else I could become an answer, if not here? (You could also tell me, I'm completely wrong with "item" - design-wise (if you have any bether solution) .) --Alien4 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer/video game item split[edit]

This section does not seem appropriate for a dab page and I think it should be split off into a separate article. —Eeky 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]