I'll probably give this a review later (I like short articles). One thing to note right away is the inconsistent use of linking publishers in citations - "Kickstarter" is linked but "Kotaku" isn't. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I am already handling that! Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The template has been broken. I am now trying to fix that. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Darkwarriorblake
I'm a little confused as to how the game was considered critically acclaimed, as far as I can tell it had only 10 reviews on Metacritic and a score in the 80s which brings it under their declaration for critical acclaim, and it has only the one award nomination.
Changed to "positive reviews"
Note: I changed it to "generally favorable reviews" as that's how Metacritic categorizes scores in the 80s. --JDC808♫ 20:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Mac OS X is just called OS X.
I think both work fine. However, I switched it to OS X, given that I just checked that the word "Mac" has been deprecated.
Other than that, it looks ok and as referenced as it can be given its such a small game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a random mention of a "Goldblum" mode, but apart from the link to Jeff Goldblum, there is no explanation for what this mode is.
I think I should remove that, because the source doesn't go into detail either. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 23:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to add a source that explains this mode. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. 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, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The player has little control over the game mechanics and is only able to move freely ... - this sentence is rather contradictory, to my reading
under his video game studio Blendo Games. - feels weird to me
Well, it was developed by Chung, but development credits are awarded to Blendo Games, which is... Chung himself.
It's not that Blendo is Chung, but the wording "under". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. Fixed.
leveraged from Gravity Bone to Thirty Flights of Loving - leveraged?
Thirty Flights of Loving includes references to and Easter eggs from classic cinema, as did Gravity Bone. - should be reworked, as there are also video games etc. Also, "classic" is far too vague a descriptor.
Just an extra point: Chung expands on some of his homages and Easter eggs in the screen caps I posted (in case you want to use them). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It replaced the character models with ones resembling actor Jeff Goldblum. - So, a male and a female Goldblum?
There is only a male character, so it's a male Jeff. Changed models to model.
So Anita was removed, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Good question. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thirty Flights of Loving was nominated for the Narrative Award at the 2013 Independent Games Festival. - have the awards been given yet? What happened?
it was a finalist, which means that it did not win. I've tweaked the wording.
TV Tropes says the mechanics are simpler over Gravity Bone. Though this isn't a reliable source, that kind of information is pertinent to the article. Also, there are mentions of "commentary". Any idea what that is?
He included "Developer commentary" with the game. This is bound to be useful, and I don't think this can be comprehensive without it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I thought: TFOL originated as a prototype for Gravity Bone, though it was canned as being "too dialogue heavy" until it was revived after Idle Thumbs contacted the Dev (source: commentary bubble #2). More to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Introduction of Anita and Borges was supposed to use dialogue; when this was removed, Idle Thumbs crew thought the relationships were unclear, and as such montages were made (source: commentary bubble over Borges).
Criminal nature of the group presented through the environment, as Chung did not want to use voiceovers and such (commentary bubble #3). Environment also used to bridge “the disconnect between the player’s knowledge and the player’s character’s knowledge” (bubble in first flashback)
Automatic people generation system for crowd scenes was based on one Chung designed for a surveillance game which did not pan out (commentary bubble in first hallway)
A noodle-eating simulation was planned, but then dropped (“Lorenzo’s Lo Mein” bubble)
The gunfight scene was intended to have a “musical rhythm”, inspired by Koyaanisqatsi and Baraka (film)
The ending area is modeled after the National Museum of Natural History (France), which required some research
TFOL is the seventh game to star Citizen Abel (though I doubt most of these were published)
Hmm, the image says "seventh Citizen Able game," which is different, since Chung said himself that the main character had no name, and that Citizen Abel had to do qith a Quake map instead. Howeverm sources have misrepresented what Citizen Able means, even when Chung himself has corrected them several times. Though, this piece of information is extremely valuable.
Unlike most of Chung’s earlier work, the design of TFOL was not framed around a certain musical composition
Thanks for all of this. I was unable to get my hands in the developer commentary for some rare reason. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's available on YouTube, though (for copyright reasons) I strongly suggest buying the game. It's $5 on Steam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The manual says Jared Emerson-Johnson and A.J. Locascio provided "additional audio", with the sound library from Soundsnap. Lazarus is credited to "David Hyde & Mad Dog". I can upload the manual to Dropbox if you want to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please. I'd like to read it and gather as much info as possible. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of missing sources, one review from an RS and one from a source I cannot judge.
Well, they are not missing. Masem already explained why I left Shacknews outside of the article. The reason why I also skipped Wired was because I wanted to include, mainly, reviews and comments from major indie websites or magazines, and major videogame magazines. IMHO, they are far more important and valuable, given their expertise and constant coverage of indie topics. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
How are you defining major? Wired has been in publication for 20 years, and is widely cited in video game articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
My point was that Wired is not a video game-focused publication, but a technology one. I gave priority to those whose main focus are video games, like IGN, Destructoid, Edge and Eurogamer. I actually gave higher priority to those who focus on PC gaming or indie gaming, like Gamasutra, PC Gamer and Rock, Paper, Shotgun over general sources. My view is that adding Wired won't make any difference. Reading the actual Wired review, it gives me the impression that this guy (Mark Brown) just came across this game by chance and decided to make a post about it. His review is significantly different from, say, those by Edge or Destructoid. These reviews actually discuss the merits of the game, instead of going with the "oh,I came across this game last night, and it's great! you should buy it!"-type of reviews. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Never ignore traditional non-gaming sources If your game gets reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or other major national newspaper, Wired, the BBC, or such other sources that normally have limited game coverage, these by all means are extremely valuable to include as they usually are written as reviews directed to the non- or casual gaming reader. They may not have scores (and thus not included in the table), but will likely have good, concise statements of why a game is good or bad, and other details.
I would not exclude an NYT review or similar from a video game, and Wired is a significant enough publication that it should not be ignored (in fact, it's mentioned explicitly in the above quote). Sound bites like "It's more like a rollercoaster ride than a video game" are very useful for articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I will add it, though I still find it valueless xD — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Added. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall a short and sweet read, but I'd double check that you've used all available sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
A comment on the shacknews source which is normally a VG RS, but as Brendan is/was a frequent forum user there (That's how I got in touch to get free images) so the review may be a bit biased. Certainly the other reivews (including the wired one) are sufficient to explain the critical praise of the game. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
How do you feel about including what players do in the game, in lieu of a plot summary with motivations? A paragraph or two is certainly possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. let me buy the game, play it all, and then add it. That's what I did with Gravity Bone. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure (though I note Gravity Bone is now free, so I totally downloaded it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Crisco 1492: GB was always free :P By the way, can we move resolved comments (of any) to the talk page? I feel lost among so much text. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've stricken those which are addressed to my satisfaction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Added two paragraphs of the events in the game. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Support on prose and images; everything looks peachy now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"It was developed as part of the Kickstarter campaign for Idle Thumbs' podcast and offered alongside a free copy of its predecessor." -- I'm a little confused by what exactly this is saying.
Changed to sold alongside. Does it make sense now? — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Still a bit awkward, Maybe "and included a free copy of its predecessor." "sold alongside" sort of sounds like you could get the predecessor free regardless if you bought this game or not. --JDC808♫ 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Changed as suggested. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This sentence: "Action is then switched to a dark room with..." -- I'm a little confused on what "Action" is meaning. "Action" also pops up in the second paragraph, second sentence. Does "action" mean scene?
"In this area, several plaques showing the game's name and credits." -- Incomplete. Maybe "In this area, there are several plaques showing the game's name and credits."?
Third paragraph: "He intentionally avoided the use of voice-overs and such," -- What is "and such"? I would suggest removing it. --JDC808♫ 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No idea. Removed as you suggested. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Support My issues have been satisfied. --JDC808♫ 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Support I believe that this article fits the FA criteria and is well referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The article's good overall from what I've skimmed, but I'm a little nervous about the phrase "takes about 15 minutes to complete." What if you get stuck? What if you've beaten it before? What if your computer's slow? I know it's sourced, but I think this statement should be distanced and disclaimed a bit, maybe as "One reviewer estimated its average completion time as 13 minutes." Just a thought. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've changed that language to "that is estimated to take about 15 minutes on average to complete". --MASEM (t) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Support: I've read the article more thoroughly and feel much more well-versed about the topic as well as refreshed from the knowledge of a novel type of game. I can only complain to the Internet for not providing more information to flesh the article out a bit. Well done. Tezero (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: the article is actually almost double its original length now after using a couple primary sources (mostly in the development section). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I added on CN tag because I don't believe the MC is implied to be the same character as Gravity Bone. Also, I feel like there's potentially some more stuff that could be added from the Tone Control podcast. Otherwise, I'd be happy to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I have a source for that. I'll add it soon. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Axem Titanium: I removed it, since I can't remember where did I see that it was the same character. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Was this the source? "Gravity Bone, a 15-minute experience, gained acclaim for its first-person storytelling and stylish art direction. Thirty Flights of Loving is a similarly brief but engaging interactive story that focuses on the same character, Citizen Abel, who is wrapped up in a heist this time." --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, nope. I think it was my imagination, or maybe a confusion. However, for such details, I only trust primary sources. I remember when all reviews of Gravity Bone said that the main character was named Citizen Abel, and then Chung came and explained that they were all wrong, and that the phrase had a totally different meaning. Since then, I dismiss all third party sources when it comes to this type of details. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Query -- Hahc, this looks about ready to close but I wonder if the wording can be improved in the last section. We talk about a sequel, then we backtrack and say it's just in the same universe and not a direct sequel. Can we change the wording in the first sentence to something more generic like "follow-up"? I think it'd make the next bit flow more naturally... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure! I agree with what you say, and it makes perfect sense to me. Suggestion implemented. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, tks -- I think we're done here then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't thank you enough, Ian — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)