Talk:Quick time event

Article Image

Whoever decided that that sexualized anime girl should be the image for this article should really be on an FBI watch list. --2600:1700:211:98D0:EC5E:F109:21C4:1D83 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

nah that's the least of my concerns. im wondering why it looks so shit. 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Wikipe-tan. IamTheWatcher1 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm, uh, very much confused as to how that's sexualized. Not to mention replacing it with A.I. slop is, uh, not a good fix. ~[thehappyspaceman] • talk • stalk • block 20:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

My brother in Christ that is a child ~~(a concerned bystander)

appears that the creep who made it is reverting edits to remove it, unfortunately. --2600:1700:211:98D0:EC5E:F109:21C4:1D83 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, that's Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, the accepted anime representation of Wikipedia. Nothing sexualized about it. Masem (t) 01:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

that just isn't right ~~ 172.125.112.248 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What isn't right? Tomoetron (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that sexualized? Tomoetron (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

"Pressing the X button can stop Wikipe-tan from being hit by the football."

"Pressing the B button can stop the player's character from being hit by the car."

As an IP says, this should get a discussion rather than unexplained reverts. In the absence of freely licenced screenshots of videogames for this article, which mocked-up version should the article use?

Pinging User:Masem as the creator of the original on the left. I replaced it with the AI-generated image on the right a couple of days ago, with the intention of taking it closer to the kind of thing that might be seen in a 2000s-era videogame. Belbury (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased, since I'm against the usage of AI in general, but in my eyes AI-generated images should only be a necessity if we have nothing that can actually take the place of one. We do have an image, which is the Wikipe-tan quick time event mockup. Not to mention the possible copyright concerns from such an image given the tendency of artificial intelligence being trained on the stolen works of others. So, in my eyes, the AI version isn't necessary here and we should use the Wikipe-tan image that we know won't cause any issues. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are copyright concerns with image models. Most the claims I've heard about e.g. training data being stored in the model weights are physically impossible; it seems like kind of a stretch to say that the mere fact of artistic skill being built through a process of observation is stealing, on the basis of intellectual property law or on any plausible moral grounds (certainly it is a divergent perspective from the previous forty-five thousand years of artistic practice).

The main issue at hand is which image clearly illustrates the article. Well, they both do, so then it is a matter of which one we like better. Uh, I think Wikipe-tan is cool, and this image has always been kind of a classic, so I prefer the one on the left, but probably the one on the right is more true-to-life in looking like a vidya game. Who knows. jp×g🗯️ 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I did check Commons when that was uploaded, and their policy is right now, the copyright concerns related to training data do not impact that AI images are generally uncopyrightable under US law. But editors should use them with care.

I created the original Wikipe-tan image but that was before we had anything like AI generators. Masem (t) 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

In my eyes, there's a difference between a "process of observation" and simply just feeding the works of others who did not consent to having their works used into a program that essentially copies them. A human being can observe the works of others and gain inspiration from them. On the other hand, AI does not legitimately think and thus does not have the ability to do such a thing; it's not observing works. The definition of art by most counts relies on a human element of imagination or skill; AI wouldn't fall under such a category because it's not skillful or imaginative, simply pulling together what it perceives as correct. There's no artistic skill in the generation of AI imagery because there's no actual legitimate thought or effort being put into the "works" it creates. It's simply interpreting what it thinks to be correct and mashing together the results, all while doing this off of the training of millions of works without any sort of consent from their creators.

I don't want to clutter up this talk page with my bickering about AI though because it'd distract from the main topic of the original post. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue with these claims but I agree that philosophy of mind is probably quite beyond the scope of this talk page section. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

We should use the image that more accurately depicts the thing that the article is about.

I think a 3D zombie game is closer to the "what our readers will expect to see" of MOS:LEADIMAGE than a 2D football game. The majority of the article is about quick time events in 3D action games, and most Google Image results for the term show scenes from 3D action games. Belbury (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

overfitting is a known phenomenon, one that has been demonstrated to happen. neural networks are usually trained for prediction, and that creates an incentive to copy the data exactly. Acrions (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm with you. I'm notably critical of A.I. slop myself, but I don't see the reason for replacing the image when both fit just as well and the original has the benefit of not training off others' work. As well, those who are still committed Wikipedia readers tend to really not enjoy A.I. content, as they can find those on other sites. ~[thehappyspaceman] • talk • stalk • block 20:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

(Not sure if this is the place to put this, but) we should create - and link within this page - a list of games that feature a Quick-Time-Event or events. There are already a good amount of examples on the page, but there are hundreds if not thousands more (including Legends of Dragoon for PS1). Catgrubs (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Football or Soccerball?

It says football, but some English dialects (Notably American) call it a soccer ball. Meowkittykats (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)