Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/EarthBound

EarthBound

I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten 90% of it and want to take it to FA. I believe the sections that need probing are:

• The Gameplay section, need to make sure everything is covered and easily understandable.
• The Characters section, need to make sure it flows and is informative, not a hinderance.
• The Story section, does it flow alright? Is it truthful? I might have gotten some of the plot mixed up.

Anyway, thanks for the help : ) -- Noj r (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Ashnard

I've done a bit of copyediting here and there. Okay, let's take a look:

• "the American version was released to a lukewarm response". The critical reception seems positive, so this probably needs clarifying to highlight that it failed commercially.
• "caricature of American culture". Inaccurate English here—only people can be caricatured, not a notion such as culture.
• "Years later, the game is now lauded by gamers for its caricature of American culture and parody of the RPG genre,[2] and has since become a cult classic." Not sure about this sentence in general. Don't date the article by saying "is now".
• "Like Dragon Quest, only the enemy is seen when engaged in combat." The reference to Dragon Quest seems a bit random and unnecessary.
• "Many of the RPG elements featured in EarthBound remain very traditional." Needs rewording for clarification. Do you mean that they are traditionally RPG elements? Although the meaning is obvious to a gamer, all this says is that the gameplay is traditional, which could mean anything.
• "battles are fought against encountered enemies". Well, I'd like to see a battle against enemies that you do not encounter. Redundant.
• "making them stronger". I haven't played the game, but I'm assuming that they receive statistical gains to make them stronger. If so could this be elaborated upon slighlty?
• "The game uses oblique projection, while most 2-D RPGs use a top down view on a grid or an isometric perspective." Source please? If not, it seems like OR
• "top down" should be hyphenated.
• "EarthBound, like Chrono Trigger" Another seemingly random reference to another RPG. Why not say "Earthbound, like other RPGs"
• "This allows players an opportunity to heal or win the battle before the counter hits zero, after which the character is knocked unconscious". Firstly, "allows players an opportunity " implies that the feature is an advantage, while it actually seems the opposite. Secondly, you can't heal a battle, but only the characters. This specifically needs rewording.

It is actually an advantage. If mortal damage is dealt to your character, you can heal them before the odometer reaches zero, escaping death e.g. being able to escape death is an advantage. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Have you reworded to mention that the characters are being healed? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "When battles are won, experience points are accumulated and can raise a character's level. Rewards for a level-up include increased attributes and new powers or abilities". This info is repeated from the sentence in the first paragraph in "Gameplay". Delete one, as one is redundant in regards to the other.
• Contradiction: "EarthBound, like Chrono Trigger, forgoes random battles"..."Because battles are not random".
  • Yikes. I should read things more carefully. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• "she remains a force to be reckoned with due to her own psychic powers". Dubious wording here. I'm also not sure whether you're making a statement about her as a gameplay unit, or as in part of the plot.
• "The meteor crash site, moments before Buzz Buzz appears." Is not a full sentence and thus should not end with a full-stop. Same for the other captions where the rule applies.
• "Story" section's too long for my linking. Try to maintain the concise style shown in "Characters".

This story section is tough. Most of the story is backtracking and trying to make backtracking concise and flow is about as easy as air lifting a herd of hippopotami out of the grand canyon. Any suggestions? Otherwise I'll simply try to cut it down. Perhaps it shouldn't go into very much detail and should simply give the gist of the plot. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It really is a suggestion and just a personal thing. Many people at WP:VG prefer to have a plot section of such a size. All that I ask that at least an effort is made to cut things down where necessary. I'm not too concerned if what there is important, and the style of writing is appropriate, which is the case here. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "project was 5 years". "5" should be written out in full.
• For Ape, why is it later capitalised, even though it wasn't before.
• "a lot of manpower and time to complete". Dubious wording. "manpower" may not be appropriate here.
• "The bicycle and delivery man systems posed problems of their own as well". Any elaboration possible here?
• Conflict of BrE and AmE: You use "defense" and "neighbor", yet proceed to use "dialogue".

I dont understand. What does this mean and how can I fix it? -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

British English and American English. "Dialogue" is considered the British version, as opposed to "dialog". So the usage needs to be consistent i.e. change to "dialog". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "poured a lot of resources". Technically, this is colloquial/figurative language, which shouldn't be used in this context.
• "Scratch and sniff stickers were also included as an extra gimmick". Who has decided that this is a gimmick?
• "A sequel was announced three years later for the ill-fated Nintendo 64DD". "ill-fated" is unnecessary here.
• Is it me, or is the text different in "Reception" than it is in the rest of the article. What happened?

How is it different? Please elaborate. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but at the time of writing, the font style was different and there was larger spacing in between words on my display. It's alright now though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you change the table to the one seen in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and many others; you know, the greenish one? Personally, I think it looks better.
• "American reactions, on the other hand, were much lower than Nintendo had anticipated." Again, please clarify whether this is the commercial or critical reception.
• "Japanese RPG's" The apostrophe here is a schoolboy error.

::Blushes in embarrassment:: -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about "Reception". It needs some info from Japanese media, and "reviews" needs to be expanded in general.

Tis true, it needs more coverage about this. I have a reference from a Famitsu magazine where the game made top spot on the weekly 30 sales chart and got good reviews from the reviewers. I'll post a message on the discussion board and see if I can get some help on this one. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "90's". Tut, tut, tut;) I'm sure you'll know what's wrong here.
• "EarthBound is now regarded as one of the greatest RPGs on the SNES,[9] as well as one of the best of the 90's". I'm not sure the opinions of these single sources warrant such comments. I'd reword to show that it is regarded this way by some, and then proceed to provide more sources.

Ill see if I can reword this or find more references. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "46th". "th" should not be superscript. Same for others of the same nature.
• Needs some sales data.

This is really hard to find, especially on a 15 year old game. I'll see what I can dig up. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have thought such information would be difficult to attain. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading the article. Looking at it, I can see it becoming an FA with some refinement. The reception section really needs exapnding to include sales data and Japanese reception, though. Well done. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for taking the time to review this article, it is greatly appreciated. I have left notes on some things that need explaining. -- Noj r (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)