This article is about the 2013 video game Proteus. The game received a large amount of coverage as it is quite different in gameplay from most other games and is frequently discussed as an example of a non-game. I think it's at least close to ready for FA though my writing isn't superb and expect that most comments will be regarding criteria 1a. Thanks in advance for taking the time to look at it. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Samwalton9. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I am unlikely to submit this for the WikiCup as I haven't done much to it this year, and am in no rush either way. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Really interesting looking topic.
"though the length and replayability were not received so well." Could this be rephrased? The following sentence, too, is a little odd.
I've reworded these sentences, which I think read better now. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"in-house engine" Jargon?
Reworded in both places. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"and Key has expressed interest in allowing player created mods of the game." But we're yet to see this?
"less smooth 16 bit graphics, before being improved to the current graphical level" Which is?
I've actually removed this, I don't think it really adds much to the section. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"After David Kanaga joined as audio composer the audio mechanics were refined through many different ideas such as allowing players to make music within the game. This idea was not developed further because the developers felt it would take away from the exploration of the game's world and make it too much like a creative tool and so Key and Kanaga settled on final audio mechanic early in development." This prose needs massaging, I feel
"When Proteus pre-orders were open in 2012, a $40 USD Artifact Edition was available which included a boxed version of the game with artwork, soundtrack, and extra development notes. In December 2013, Key apologised that this edition had still not shipped, saying that it was still in development and offered refunds for customers requesting them." You here jump from pre-release information to many months after the release. This doesn't read well. You seem to have several sentences about the actual release in the lead, but nowhere else.
I've added mention of the game's release to the Development section but I think it could do with better wording, will have a think about it. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Something that's bugging me- if this is a game made by a Brit, why do we have American spelling and mdy dates? Surely, better to go with BritEng?
I write in British spelling by default but bits must have been altered here and there, I'll go through and change to British spellings wherever I see them. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, great- if this is British English, the dates should be in the format of 27 February 2014, rather than February 27, 2014. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Does that apply to references too? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok done, pretty sure I got them all. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm yet to take a look at the sources, but I feel that the prose is a little below the line currently. I've made some edits- please double check them. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking through! I've addressed the above points where I can. Your edits all seem sensible too. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd really like to support this, but I feel that the article still isn't quite there. You may want to contact Masem (talk·contribs) and especially PresN (talk·contribs) who have had experience bringing games like this through FAC. I've done some more copyediting, and fixed the dates. Here are a few more bits to look at:
"Proteus was a winner of the Best Audio category in the 2011 Indiecade awards" a winner or the winner? If the former, perhaps say "one of three [or whatever] winners of the..."
Must have been bad wording, as written in the reception section it was the winner; changed. I also noticed that it was featured in the Museum of Modern Art while looking this up, so will add that to the reception section too. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you give the price in US$ if this is an English game and this article's in BritEng? Do you have a GB£ price for the game?
I gave the price in US$ because that's all the secondary sources gave it as; a primary source added to this so that we can change to £ might be a good idea though the developers quote it in US$ too. Will keep looking for a £ source. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If that's what the sources say, you could just add a £ value in brackets to keep it BritEng friendly? I'm not sure. It's not a massive deal either way. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As J Milburn flagged me, one thing to look at is the gameplay section. I haven't played this game though am aware of it, so can appreciate you will not likely have a plot section (such would be incorporated into gameplay). But that said, I feel it needs a bit more distinguishing between plot and gameplay, even if the game itself is super vague about what is going on. For example, you describe how the game ranges through 4 seasons, starting in spring, ending in winter. Is the player given any idea of story or purpose? Maybe that could be explained better as a intro to the section, if that's possible. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Masem. The gameplay section is tough because of the nature of the game. You're given essentially zero context, the game starts, you progress through the seasons which are only made apparent visually, and then the game ends; no readily apparent purpose, no story, no plot. That said, I think I'll play through the game again and see if I pick up on anything that could be used to expand/re-organise the section. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I would make this a point then in the section - "The player is given nearly no context or instructions as they play the game, nor given ideas of what goals they need to complete" (not this exactly language). Explain what is not there, perhaps taking some language from reviews (eg the Gamespot review has a line "However, Proteus is even more open in its design than Dear Esther because there's no straightforward narrative. There are plenty of events to witness and things to see, but it's only the strength of your own curiosity that pulls you through" that you might borrow language from. It's the absence of such things that, looking at reviews, what makes this more notable. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Comments from Tezero:
"The soundtrack changes depending on players' movements. Different sounds are played when players are close to different objects or in certain locations.": Can you elaborate on this, particularly the second sentence?
I'm going to reword the gameplay section, will take this into account. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've elaborated on this better, though I'm honestly a little stuck on how to explain the soundtrack mechanic accurately without too many examples. If anyone else fancies rewording it feel free. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"The game is developed" --> "The game was developed"
Sounds reasonable, though I could understand others disagreeing. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that having remained open over a month without attracting any support for promotion, and in fact any comments at all for two weeks, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel terrible about this. Samwalton fixed all of my issues, and I didn't have this on my watchlist so I forgot to come back and support it. Is it too late?
Support, at any rate. This is a very well-crafted article. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
There would need to have been additional comprehensive reviews/support in any case for it to be promoted or even to remain open, Tezero. The nominator can bring it back to FAC after two weeks and ping you and other previous reviewers that it's again available for comment, and see how it goes then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)