Talk:Ogre Battle Gaiden: Prince of Zenobia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this one. Hoping to get through this in an hour or so. Will go section by section and then come back to the lead at the end. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay

• The first sentence here is grammatical, but hits with a lot of information at once. I'd suggest breaking it into two, just for flow.
• "Before starting the game, the player is asked a random series of six out of 22 questions, which determine the starting statistics of lead protagonist Tristam as represented by Major Arcana Tarot cards; after those six, the player can select one extra card." -> "Before starting the game, the player determines the protagonist's attributes in the form of seven Major Arcana tarot cards. The player is given six cards based on their answers to six questions from a random pool of twenty-two, and then freely selects one additional card."
• "trimmed-down" -> "simplified"
• "Units each have" -> "Each unit has"
• "fighters being good at melee abilities and magic users having access to offensive and defensive spells" -> "fighters with strong melee attacks, or magic users with offensive and defensive spells".
• "some levels become unavailable on that playthrough" -> there might be a clearer way to say this. Are you just saying that the level sequence branches with the narrative?
• "If all units are defeated, the player" -> "If the player's units are defeated, they..."
• "could be connected" -> "can be connected"
• "selected squads engaging in single skirmishes" -> this could be more clear
• The sources mostly check out here. Main question is if "the gaming intelligence agency" is a reliable source?

Synopsis

• You use "during" twice in the first sentence
• Who is rebelling?
• "bandits that have" -> "bandits who have"
• "Depending in the route taken after the third act's opening battle" -> "Depending on the player's choices after the third act's opening battle,"
• Don't need a semi-colin here.
• "The choice of routes and answers to a series of questions asked by Baldr determine Tristam's alignment to either order or chaos, and alter the ending" -> "Tristram's alignment is determined by the player's choice of routes, as well as their answers to a series of questions asked by Baldr."
• You could elaborate on the ending here.
• Sources seem to check out.

Development

• "which produced games" -> "which had made games"
• "SNK, creators of the Neo Geo Pocket Color (NGPC), licensed the rights from Quest to develop a new Ogre Battle for their system, acting as both developer and publisher" -> "Quest agreed to license the Ogre Battle rights to SNK, the creators of the Neo Geo Pocket Color (NGPC), allowing them to develop and publish a game for their system."
• "the production team felt that the narrative being created was lacking compared to the original" -> "the team felt that their narrative was lacking compared to the original"
• "While the overall narrative could not be changed, Kanzaki agreed to rewrite the dialogue to be more mature, a solution the team felt would not result in a delay. Ultimately, the game needed to be delayed..." -> "While it was too late to change the overall narrative without a delay, Kanzaki agreed to rewrite the dialogue to be more mature. Still, the game was delayed..."
• "leading to the budget rising and required sales target being increased in response" -> "leading to more costs that could only be covered with a higher sales target."
• "created advertisement artwork" -> "created promotional artwork"
• "Ogura also impressed the team by working during an illness to create promotional pieces" -> "Ogura continued working even through an illness, impressing the rest of his team."
• The sources here look good.

Release

• "Prince of Zenobia was announced in September 1999, originally scheduled for release in March 2000." -> "In September 1999, Prince of Zenobia was announced for release in March 2000."
• "It was displayed by SNK at the Tokyo Game Show in April 2000, with a final release date of June 22, 2000" -> "SNK displayed the game at the 2000 Tokyo Game Show, with a final release date of June 22, 2000."
• "A version packaged with a limited version of the NGPC was released alongside the standard edition" -> "Along with the standard release, SNK also released a limited edition packaged with the NGPC."
• "After the launch and before the team were dispersed into other projects, they held a celebratory party with their families." -> "The team held a launch party to celebrate with their families, before the team was dispersed into other projects."
• Maybe put the launch party before the info about the different release materials and editions, just for organization and flow.
• "While never officially announced for a Western release,[1][4] any chance of such ended when SNK was bought out by Aruze following the commercial failure of the NGPC, leading to the closure of its North American offices" -> "The game was never announced for a Western release, and the commercial failure of the NGPC meant it would never happen: Aruze acquired SNK and shut down its North American offices."

Reception

• The paragraph organization could use some work here. I'd separate the critical reviews from the commercial performance. I might also separate previews from reviews, and separate the retrospective reviews from the reviews at-the-time.
• "with criticism focusing on shortcomings caused by its" -> "while criticizing its"
• "positively noted" -> "praised"
• "and referred to the title as "exciting" when talking about the possibility of a Western release" -> "and expressed excitement for a possible Western release."
• "series and genre" -> could probably just drop this without losing too much meaning
• "Kurt Kalata, writing for Hardcore Gaming 101, defined the title " -> " Kurt Kalata of Hardcore Gaming 101 described the title..."
• "accomplishments" -> is there a better way to describe this?
• "Both Kerry Brunskill of Nintendo Life and Siliconera's Graham Russell gave Prince of Zenobia an honorable mention in articles about Neo Geo titles deserving of a re-release on modern platforms" -> "Both Kerry Brunskill of Nintendo Life and Siliconera's Graham Russell mentioned Prince of Zenobia as Neo Geo titles deserving a modern re-release."
• The sources here look basically good.

The article is on its way. A few issues to work through but it can get to GA with some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: I've gone through and hopefully addressed/put in all the points you raised. If I missed any, let me know. The Reception sections now arranged in order of reviews/previews, from earliest to latest. As to Gaming Intelligence Agency, I think in this case it's conditionally okay to use due to it being an older website that covered obscure and JP-exclusive titles of this kind (used it in Rez and Koudelka and the reviewers didn't seem to mind given the context). Side note, this has been perhaps the most hair-pullingly difficult article to source I've ever done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:Yeah and i must say that you did an excellent job on this page! Finding sources for NGPC games is hard enough due to how niche the handheld is but what you pulled off with Ogre Battle Gaiden is nothing short of a miracle. Well done! Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really sympathetic to sourcing niche game articles, and you've done a good job. The other articles are a good comparator. I think we're good to wrap this up with maybe a few more run-on sentences that could use a re-phrase, re-organization, or split.

• "Prince of Zenobia is set within March of the Black Queen during the final stages of the local rebellion within Zenobia against the occupying Holy Zeteginean Empire" -> break this up or shorten it somehow
• "The subtitle was a point of heavy discussion; while "Ogre Battle Gaiden" was decided upon from an early stage, the scenario was still in flux and the subtitle was ultimately suggested by Kono as a noble-sounding title referencing the planned storyline" -> same
• Move the preview-reviews to before the actual reviews
• Replace "negatively noted" with "criticized".
• In the lead, move "Choices made during the narrative impact the ending" to the end of the first paragraph.
• Replace "brand" with "intellectual property", as they licensed more than the brand for sure. The lead is otherwise really clear and well-written.

This is very close now. The sourcing is solid and the image has a clear fair use rationale. I can't see anything that would raise any red flags around neutrality, and it covers the aspects of the subject that I'd expect. Just a few more tweaks to the prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: All done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazing work. Thanks for this. If you have time, I could use an VG-FA review. Happy editing! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)