Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Grand Theft Auto clone

Grand Theft Auto clone edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Archive

I'm nominating this article for peer review in hopes that I can cross the bridge from C-status to GA-status. I think the article is pretty well-researched. A controversial area will be the name of the genre, but a careful read of the research will show that there is no consistent name, and that popular names and definitions are problematic. Really, the main thing I want to see is if there are any major omissions or errors in this article as it stands now. I'd like to correct it, expand it, and take it to GA nomination. Randomran (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to be snarky, but the tagged and unsourced paragraph at the bottom might be something to work on :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I left that in there because I was curious if anyone thought it was anything other than patent OR. I was tempted to just remove it, but wanted to put that out there. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you get sources, it's not. Currently, it reads like it. Also, a big hole in the article is how a GTA clone could have come out before GTA III (Body Harvest)... you should probably explain this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. I just scrubbed it. I tried to clarify the point about Body Harvest in the lead. It's explained in more detail in the Origin section. Is the problem just the lead, or is it still unclear in the origin section? Any advice on the wording? Randomran (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should explain why it's called a GTA clone instead of Body Harvest, since Harvest came first (I'm assuming it's the popularity...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified that part in the Origin section, and summarized it in the lead. Let me know what you think. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of a tweak. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to make this article more clear, and/or comprehensive. Randomran (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to a thorough review... at some point :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Randomran (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any comments over the page, but I would like to point out that I have edited the lead a little bit and would like to know how it sounds now. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I just made a couple more tweaks. I imagine this will be refined as the article works its way up the evaluation chain. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Someone another

Open World is linked twice in the lead.
To be honest I find the use of the abbreviation 'GTA clone' irritating, I'd much rather it was eliminated altogether.
The article uses the title, supposedly a genre, which is a strong statement in itself, along with 'GTA-style games', which is inconsistent and undermines the argument that this is a distinct genre as opposed to mere similarities.
"Naming difficulty" Not 'arf, could you find a more appropriate section title?
"which was developed by Rockstar North when it was formerly called DMA Design." DMA Design needs wikilinking, I think it would be better structured if DMA Design was mentioned first and the transition from one software house to another was explained.
"The genre has also evolved to refine the aiming and shooting mechanisms." This isn't actually saying anything, everything is tinkered with as time goes on, could you explain how these game mechanisms have evolved?
"A market analysis in early 2006 found that the marketplace was grim for any direct competitors to the Grand Theft Auto series.[10]" Grim doesn't read well and could do with replacing. Again, what is this sentence actually saying? Is the market saturated? Are competitors too late to cash-in?
Are there details out there about why developers chose to copy GTA, other than the obvious which is the game's success? I get the feeling that there's some interesting nuggets of information out there.
Apart from the statement that they are considered an evolutionary step in gaming, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the impact of these games, how they have evolved gaming etc. The subject of the article is well explained, the history is good, but some more details about where these fit into the wider picture would be good.

Thanks for working on the article. Someone another 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I tried to address all your concerns. Take a look and tell me what you think, particularly the "origin" section that talks about how GTA3 influenced games, and the "recent history" section that talks about the challenges facing new games in this genre.

The only thing I couldn't address was why. I'm going to try to keep an eye out. But I suspect you won't find many developers willing to even admit they copied GTA, let alone why they did it. If they had cynical or monetary motives, you probably won't hear them talk about it. If they had artistic reasons for doing the game they were doing, they won't admit they're following a formula. But I'm just guessing. Maybe something will turn up in the future. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking really good, thanks for considering my suggestions. As for the reasoning in copying the game, it can also come from third parties rather than just the developers of these games, it's one of those things which may never get mentioned or one day could suddenly appear on Gamasutra. If you'd have told me that magazines and intellectuals would be discussing gender roles in Resident Evil, for instance, I'd have said pull the other one, but the level of discussion and breadth of coverage have expanded massively and anything's possible. Here's to GTA's ungodly legacy. :) Someone another 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed up my strategy and tried one more dig. Didn't find anything specific about why. But did find a funny anecdote about people constantly pitching "... <insert license here> and turn it into a Grand Theft Auto clone for us please". Also, interestingly enough, some people thought Saints Row was better than all the GTA titles to date. Those are both kind of interesting, and seem worth mentioning. I'll get around to it, and keep an eye out for more. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

The citation scheme is, shall we say... unique. It might be better to source one publication per ref tag. Also, you've got some references duplicated. (More to follow) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A Grand Theft Auto clone refers to a game genre made famous by Grand Theft Auto III in 2001." - wouldn't it be more straightforward to say it's just a game?
"But other reviewers" - there's redundancies such as but you have to get rid of.
I'm concerned about using Games Radar is a source. How does it meet WP:RS? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The reference scheme was something that was featured in the 4X article for claims that involve "some" or "several" games, or just facts that are more contentious. Otherwise, refining the references and grammar will take some time. I see that games radar has a full editorial staff, but it's not quite clear. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]