Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thief II: The Metal Age/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:23, 17 August 2014 [1].


Thief II: The Metal Age edit

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One month after Thief: The Dark Project's commercially and critically successful debut, Looking Glass Studios started working on Thief II: The Metal Age. Eidos Interactive returned to publish the game, and it was produced—in what seems to have been a first for Looking Glass—almost entirely on schedule. Looking Glass stripped down the game's design to focus exclusively on stealth, partly at the request of their fan community. Unfortunately, a string of disastrous business mistakes had left Eidos and Looking Glass hemorrhaging money. Thief II was a success, but Looking Glass closed a few months after its release, after a buyout deal with Eidos fell through.

I started to overhaul this page back in April, as part of my push for the Looking Glass Studios video games GT. I realized a number of weeks ago that it was probably near FA quality, and that upgrading the GT to a FT wasn't unrealistic. So, hot on the heels of Flight Unlimited II's promotion, I present you with another nomination. I hope this one will be as trouble-free as my last, but I'll be on hand to address any concerns raised below. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero edit

I feel bad that my FAC has drummed up two reviews and yours none, even though mine is more recent. I'll review this later today; I just want to crank out some work on a non-video-game article I'll be putting up at GAN soon. At first glance, this looks high-quality, although Gameplay's a little short and summative. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was the 26th somewhere in the world then! Ahehe. Alright, initial comments, to be followed by more later:

  • Is it necessarily to note that the guards are AI-controlled? I mean, in what games aren't they?
  • That's a good point. Changed.
  • "While it is possible for the player character to engage in direct combat, he is easily defeated" - What weapons or other defense mechanisms does he have?
  • The bow and sword mentioned in the second paragraph. I thought this was clear, but, if it isn't, I'm not sure how I could change it.
  • Oh, I didn't notice. My mistake. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the game's higher difficulty settings, the player typically must avoid killing humans" - You mean you fail the mission if you kill one, or they make noise as they die, a la Mark of the Ninja, on the hard difficulty only?
  • You fail the mission. Clarified.
  • How many difficulty settings are there?
  • Three. I'm not sure that it's necessary to include the exact number, though, because I only discuss the settings in passing.
  • Well, then just say "medium and hard" and mention nearby that there's an easy one. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
  • "which connects to throwable "Scouting Orb" cameras that provide reconnaissance" - Can you only throw one at a time? If not, how do you switch between views? And either way, can you view both what the camera sees and what his biological eye sees at the same time?
  • You throw one at a time. When it lands, your screen changes to the perspective of the orb, and you can disable it at any time. After that, you can't reactivate the orb until you've picked it up and thrown it again. Stripping this down to "provide reconnaissance" seemed like a way to avoid cruft.
  • Eh, it's too vague, I think, and you're doing fine on cruft. (The section is quite short, actually, when you compare it to those of most VG FAs.) Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added something. See what you think.
  • Describe the Trickster a bit in Setting and characters. Defeating a god is kind of a big deal.
  • Thief II-related sources were a bit thin on this subject, but Ken Levine mentions in a Thief: TDP interview that he was based on Pan, so I added that. There aren't really any third-party sources that describe the Trickster's plan, and it wasn't a by-the-books world domination thing, so I'm not sure what else to include.
  • Third-party sources aren't necessary if you can provide a short overview from game quotes or the manual. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "The game's primary antagonist is the founder of the Mechanists, Father Karras (also voiced by Russell)" - Can you describe Karras a bit?
  • Added a bit. His defining trait is his crippling speech impediment, but none of the sources actually mention that, so I couldn't include it.
  • Again, you can use in-game dialogue to attest that. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one in the game mentions his speech impediment. I added something else to flesh out his character.

Tezero (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More responses. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good. So, I could've sworn I'd written out more comments... and I had! Except they were on a different Google Chrome window, because I'd opened this one to pull up Amazon listings for my textbooks for this semester, so that my parents could see them but wouldn't carp at me for being on Wikipedia. Then I forgot about this window, so my comments remained but a preview. Here:

  • "a game that Thief II project director Steve Pearsall considered to be an experiment" - While he was making Thief I, or afterward?
  • It isn't clear in the sources, but the comments were made post-Thief: TDP, so I changed it to indicate that.
  • "Combat was minimized more so than in the original" - Awkward. What about "Combat was given less focus/was less emphasized than in the original"?
  • Tweaked.
  • ""sort of a 'Batman' feel"" - Minor, but you might want to add ", referring to the 1989 film" and place the link there. Otherwise, the reader might think you're just talking about Batman in general and not bother to hover over the link to disambiguate.
  • Done.
  • "during his vacation in Europe" - Is this vacation referenced elsewhere that I'm not noticing? If not, just say "a vacation in Europe", and give a time estimate for this vacation if one's available.
  • It isn't mentioned elsewhere, but "a vacation" is unnecessarily vague, I think.
  • "The technique had been developed for the original Thief, as an evolution of Ken Levine's suggestion to use motion comic cutscenes." - Ken Levine talked to them for the original game? Can you elaborate on the context?
  • Ken Levine was a project planner on Thief: TDP before he left to found Irrational. He's pretty well known for it. I added "designer" to clarify it.
  • "The team met their goal" - Weird to introduce that after the preceding sentence without a "However" or "Nevertheless".
  • Changed.
  • "Eidos expedited the company's payment for completing the game." - Doesn't this always happen? (If so, why's it necessary to mention?) Or am I not understanding what it means?
  • They expedited (increased the speed of) payment in that they tried to get them funds faster than normal. It's relevant because Looking Glass was falling apart by this time, and this was Eidos throwing them a bone.
  • The prose in Reception is okay, but I'm not a fan of organization by reviewers (rather than issues), as the paragraph divisions are inherently arbitrary. I won't object just based on that because it's a stylistic preference and a large task, but try to rewrite it if you can, and definitely if someone else objects.
  • I've done it both ways in past FAs (Flight Unlimited and Flight Unlimited II), and I find that reviewer organization is easier. Plus, it lends itself less readily to original research, since issue-organization typically involves OR summary sentences at the beginning of each paragraph. I'd prefer to leave Reception as it stands.

After this, I'll only have to go through the last section, references, and images. Tezero (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch:

  • "with Thief II Gold and Thief III cancelled" - These are elaborated on immediately afterward but never given as an antecedent earlier. Why mention it there?
  • This is the only place where Thief II Gold is mentioned, and it doesn't make much sense not to mention Thief III alongside it. I added a bit of context to make it seem less random.
  • You may want to place a "main" tag with Thief III and Thief the reboot so the reader doesn't have to pick through the text for them.
  • Done.
  • "but made an effort to avoid similarities to Mulan." - What similarities would these be? The fictional and real Mulan were Chinese.
  • The line is a reference to a design document published by PC Gamer UK. Here's the full context:
  • "She is about 18 years old. Dark brown hair, initially quite long but cut short after Mission 1 as a sign of grief for Kedar, whom she believes to be dead. She's about medium height, slender, pretty muscular for a girl. Features and skin tone lean toward an exotic, middle-eastern/north-african look with eyes slightly tilted and green in color. Graphics will be given a copy of the description and asked to solicit several character sketches. It's noted that we must avoid any strong parallels with Mulan."
  • Their reasoning is a bit strange to me as well, but the Mulan point was clearly important, so I decided to include it. Any suggestions?
  • Eh, if that's all that was given, it's fine. Strange, though. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dark Mod may be worth mentioning in the prose if it really is that closely tied to the source material.
  • It's only distantly related to the article topic, but I thought that it was probably relevant enough for a See also mention. If you think it isn't necessary, I can just remove it.
  • Nah, it's fine. I'm pretty liberal on what gets to go in a See also. Wikipedia's a ballpit of link-hopping fun at the greyscale formality convention anyway; we may as well grant the reader an extra hour. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And... that's it! The FURs look fine, and no sources jump out as unreliable or improperly formatted. Tezero (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The article's size appears to be scaring away reviewers, so I really appreciate your taking a look at it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I hadn't thought of it as especially long, but I guess most game articles don't include a Post-release section or analogue. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work. No further comments of mine are necessary. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Taylor Trescott

I currently have a videogame FAC open, so I've decided to review the other ones.

  • "Eidos Montreal announced a reboot of the" – I think the "reboot" pipe is a little too eggy.
  • Tried to solve this.
  • Unlink Victorian era in Production - it's already linked in Plot (per WP:OVERLINK)
  • Oops. Missed that. Fixed.
  • Why bother to put (E3) and (AI) after those terms if you're not going to use them again?
  • Unlinked E3. AI reappears once in Reception, though.
  • Release date discrepancy - infobox gives February 29 but the Final months section says "the game was released on March 23, 2000."
  • Fixed.
  • PC Zone can be unlinked in "Sequels" (it's already linked in Reception)
  • Fixed.

That's it! Ping me when you respond. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The player assumes the role of Garrett as he unravels a conspiracy related to a new religious sect. Players take on missions such as burglaries and frameups, while trying to avoid detection by guards and automated security." The first sentence uses the singular form "The player". I am unsure why the second sentence uses plural. Perhaps change the start of the second sentence to either "The player takes" or "Garrett takes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Gameplay", the screenshot seems to be very dark. I can see a row of white markers at the bottom-left, and a small patch of light at the middle-right. I certainly can't see a blackjack or a guard. I know that Thief II often has dark environments (I have played the game). I also realise that the dark appearance might be due to my display settings. Do other editors really see the details in the picture? In any case, I don't think that this picture is a good way to illustrate the game. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change from singular to plural was to add variation. I implemented your suggestion. However, I rolled back your syntax edit to Gameplay, which introduced a typo. As for the Gameplay screenshot, I intentionally captured a (relatively) bright area in the bank level. A brighter screenshot could only have been taken if I'd run around at high visibility, which would have misrepresented the game. I can see the guard and blackjack just fine on my monitor, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am now logged in using a different computer and monitor. I can see the details now, although still a little dark. I don't think that anything else can or should be done about the picture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", last paragraph: "On the highest of the game's three difficulty levels, killing humans results in a game over, and certain missions require the player not to knock out any guards." The last part of the sentence is rather clumsy. I tried fixing this, but JimmyBlackwing was unhappy with my edit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what's clumsy about it. Could you explain further? Also, your edit changed the final section to "and certain missions require the player must not knock out any guards", which makes no sense to me. That formulation would be grammatical if the sentence read "and in certain missions the player" (would you prefer this?), but it definitely doesn't fit the existing version. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how to explain it further. I just think that the sentence does not flow smoothly. I am surprised that you think my suggestion "makes no sense". Of course I am open to other possible phrases that make sense and flow smoothly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "and some missions do not allow the player to knock out any guards"? - Dank (push to talk) 10:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Used Dank's suggestion. Anyway, I said that it made no sense because it was based on a misreading of the sentence. It was not "certain missions require [that] the player not to knock out any guards"; but "certain missions require the player [as in, 'I require you to do X.'] not to knock out any guards." I stand by the original formulation, but Dank's version is a compromise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Dank's suggestion is accurate. Does the mission really "not allow the player to knock out any guards", or does the player fail the mission if a guard is knocked out? I suspect the latter. Two references are provided. Game Theory states "At a higher level of difficulty, you are often required to show even more restraint, completing your mission without leaving any trace of your presence. That means leaving everyone else alive and conscious." This supports the latter view. GameSpot does not support either interpretation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Does not allow" can be taken in two ways. Either it's impossible to use the blackjack, or it's just against the rules to use it. I don't see a problem. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that there are two possible interpretations. (I dispute that claim.) Yet you seem happy to leave this ambiguity in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another rewrite. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Plot", subsection "Story", paragraph 1: "The game begins with Garrett back to his life as a thief." Was Garrett previously not a thief? If so, this should be mentioned. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garrett was always a thief, but this sentence is intended to show that Garrett has gone back to normal thievery after fighting the Trickster. I wrestled with this sentence quite a bit, but I couldn't come up with anything better than this admittedly mediocre option. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Axl: Still holding out for a response before attempting to address the points you mentioned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "The game begins with Garrett continuing his life as a thief." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a high-quality article. (I have not checked the references. Of the two references that I did look up as part of the "knock out" issue described above, one of them does not support the statement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And, regarding the GameSpot citation you mentioned, that's a leftover source from before I rewrote the article (see [2]). It was never intended to support that sentence; I just left it at the end of the Gameplay section, long after the sentence it had been citing was gone. I went ahead and removed it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Garrett and Viktoria learn that it is the Cultivators inside Servant masks which emit red vapor, a "rust gas" that destroys all forms of organic life.": probably doesn't need mentioning twice
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I'm impressed how easy it was for a non-gamer to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Did a little follow-up copyediting and attempted to address the redundancy issue you mentioned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look great. "of ''Thief II, ''depicting" is a VisualEditor thing; I'll try and see if there's a way to get it to stop doing that. I didn't make the best choices when trimming your text, but the basic idea is that I try to get rid of any phrases (not individual words, usually) that don't seem to add to what's already there ... and often the result can be improved on, and I'm glad you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thief_II:_The_Metal_Age/archive1&oldid=1075160774"