Talk:Vampyr (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 13:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this tomorrow. One thing though, does release need to be a lvl2 section? It's short enough that it might be better for it to be a lvl3 in development, but this could just be personal preference (as I don't remember there being an official way to do it). Up to you and either way, I'll review the rest tomorrow and in the coming days. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I previewed your suggestion, and it simply didn't look right. It's big enough to be its own section. Two lines less, it wouldn't be. Cognissonance (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Here are some more comments. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• amenable to destruction based on the player's actions, which may also lead to four alternative endings Can this be reworded? It's hard to follow. Perhaps amenable to destruction based on the player's actions. Their actions also influence which of the game's ending they experience.

• I worded it a bit differently, otherwise Y Cognissonance (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since the article first mentions London here, say it's set during the Spanish flu. Set during the era of the Spanish flu, London serves as a fictional...

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Now the next paragraph's opening sentence doesn't have to mention the flu. To gather an understanding of the background, the developers researched the setting by travelling to London and... (not a fan of the word "background" here, but using "London" again makes it repetitive)

• Good suggestion! Y Cognissonance (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

• could be targeted, which has consequences → could be targeted, bearing consequences

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• How is being able to leap across gaps related to combat?

• It can be used to avoid combat, which is a form of dodging, and upgrades allow it to deal damage. Cognissonance (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot

• a typical feature in the progeny of vampires. Is this from the game or is it a general statement? If it's the latter, it needs a source.

• It is part of the story and recurs in the second paragraph when Reid's sister wants to kill him because his voice is always in her head. Cognissonance (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking good so far! Here's the rest. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Development

• The article uses "60" and "80" here but "sixty" in gameplay. Are we sticking to the numbers or the words?

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• considered to set the game in → considered setting the game in

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• was hired for the voice of → was hired to voice

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• What was the use of the literary sources? The article mentions the TV shows were used for medical information, but the books are left undescribed.

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't it to be assumed a game has a backup system? I don't think this is entirely necessary, but it's up to you.

• It was specifically mentioned as an important detail in the source. I prefer keeping it. Cognissonance (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• for years of development → throughout development

• Y Cognissonance (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Release

• This section doesn't include the release date.

• The second sentence establishes the release date. Cognissonance (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• But there's no mention of 5 June 2018 anywhere in the prose besides the lead. How about a short sentence at the end? Vampyr was released worldwide on 5 June 2018. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand. The first sentence of Release mentions it was rescheduled for 2018. The second sentence says that the release date was revealed to be 5 June. It's in the prose. Cognissonance (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Must've missed that. Y Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• There are a lot of quotes here that could be paraphrased.

• @Anarchyte: Could you be more specific? Cognissonance (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"healing and killing" → Reid's natures or acting as a doctor or vampire

"some inherent worth" → importance

"interesting" → compelling

"excellent" can go.

story for its "grounded approach" and favoured the "citizen system" → story and enjoyed the citizen mechanics.

@Cognissonance: That's in the first paragraph, but the second has similar issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I paraphrased the quotes above and in the second paragraph as well. Cognissonance (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Additionally, it's very "X said Y" with non-sequiturs between each reviewer. Try finding common points raised by a few reviewers and splitting the section into paragraphs on each point, rather than a wall of text of pros and cons. For example, I've noticed the atmosphere is mentioned a lot. There could be a few lines only about what reviewer's praised it for and what they thought its shortcomings were, if any. You could also write one about character development that features comments from both sides. For instance, Destructoid liked it, but Game Revolution disliked it. I usually try to find one that was highly praised, with almost no one criticising it, one or two aspects that received mixed comments, and one that was universally hated.

• I know that is the default style for most editors on the project, but mine has served me well in many other Good Articles. Cognissonance (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Including Remember Me (video game), which you reviewed. Cognissonance (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Remember Me connected the reviewers: Taljonick agreed and Taljonick also disliked. While you can disregard the idea of reworking the whole section if you'd like, try to make a couple connections between the reviews so that it flows nicer. "x shared similar sentiments", "z agreed", "y also held the opinion that", etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I made one connection during the quote paraphrasing. Will try to find more ways. Cognissonance (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: How does it look now? Cognissonance (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better. I'll have one final read through in an hour or so. Also, seeing as Lordtobi has changed a few numbers to words, might it be better if 60 and 80 are changed too, even though they're larger than twelve? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Y Cognissonance (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Everything fine's here. Access dates aren't required.

Overall

@Cognissonance: This is very close to being a good article. The main issues lie in the reception section which could benefit from a bit of a makeover. This is on hold for now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking good! I've made a few of my own changes, but this is good enough to be passed now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)