Talk:Celeste (video game)

What are the names of Celeste's Developer and Publisher?

I am saying this because there have been many name changes and conflicting information on the internet.

On the official Celeste website, there is the logo of "Maddy Makes Games" on the bottom. It is included on Maddy Thorson's website with "Maddy Makes Games" on top as well. It is also included on EXOK Games' website, with its publisher being "Matt Makes Games, Inc." It's press kit last modified in 2018, its console releases, and its Epic Games Store release both say that the developer and publisher is "Matt Makes Games". On Steam, its developer is "Extremely OK Games, Ltd." with its publisher being "Matt Makes Games Inc." Finally, on itch.io, it is under the storefront "Maddy Makes Games".

I'm curious about which one would it be currently, as the current names on Wikipedia seem to be based on the press release. - John4Numbers (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Games often change "owners" as companies get gobbled up. On Wikipedia, we use what can be established (in reliable, secondary sources) as the developer/publisher at time of release, rather than the current owner. In this case it's complicated or potentially overruled by our Manual of Style guideline on gender identity, given the developer's gender transition and how it's reflected in the company's name. czar 21:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's something I honestly don't know how to handle. I think I'm leaning towards "Matt Makes Games" as the best choice, as all contemporary sources call the developer/publisher that. I would be fine switching it to "Extremely OK Games", as it's the developer listed in the game itself. I'm not sure about "Maddy Makes Games", though. I could only find two reliable sources list them as the game's developer, and the term "Maddy Makes Games" has never really been a thing. It was loosely applied in 2020 after Thorson changed her name, over a full year after EXOK succeeded the company, and, to my knowledge, has never been any sort of legal entity. As for MOS:DEADNAME, it seems like something that needs more discussion. I'm open to an RfC on the topic, as this is definitely something that warrants a wide discussion in my opinion, though I personally don't have strong feelings either way. Do we default to WP:COMMONNAME, in which case "Maddy Makes Games" has never been the common name, do we go with the name at time of publication, per other video games that have had their developer/publisher undergo a name change/change in ownership, though does that conflict with guidelines about using a transgender person's deadname? Can policies about people apply to companies, even if the company is named after them? Do we go with EXOK because that's the more common name that doesn't risk using a person's deadname? I've stuck to the "use the one from contemporary sources" route, though I've deliberately pretty much not used the name of the developer/publisher at all—it's only in the lead and top of the infobox, everywhere else uses things like "the developers" to avoid this whole mess. I have no clue where to even start tackling this problem as a whole, though, and I'm certainly open to an RfC to help, because GENDERID-related stuff on Wikipedia has been contentious and IMO this isn't a problem to be solved on the talk page of a relatively small indie game. DecafPotato (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is any potential for confusion in changing the primary publisher to either Maddy Makes Games or EXOK Games. It's important to be mindful of deadnaming, and I don't think people are so attached to the original developer name that they would be confused if it was changed. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I said above, I’d prefer EXOK in that case. Maddy Makes Games first appeared more than a year after EXOK, and retrospective sources use EXOK mostly, while contemporary ones use the old name of the studio—a former name which needs to be included at least in a footnote because it was notable for Celeste specifically. DecafPotato (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that we add EXOC as the developer and create the footnote regarding Matt Makes Games. Publishing is a bit of a gray area, but I believe we should use the original name under which the game was published (Matt) and then add the footnote saying that the publisher's name was changed. The Night Watch (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this

It's been some time since the above discussion, and I believe there's been a shift in what the company's name is being listed as. For example, its entry on EXOK's website, Epic Games Store entry, and Steam entry have now all been updated to "Maddy Makes Games". I don't know what would be best in this situation, especially as it's complicated by EXOK being listed in some cases. Perhaps it's time to revisit this question? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the guideline for developer names is, but looking at Juno (film), it lists Elliot Page and has a footnote stating that the film was released before his transition and was credited as Ellen Page. We could do something similar here, list the developer as "Maddy Makes Games" but specify that when it was first released it was listed as "Matt Makes Games" until software updates changed the name. ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding we use developer/publisher name from when the game was first published. For example Grand Theft Auto III was developed by DMA Design, Not Grand Theft Auto III was developed by Rockstar North. Or another BioShock is a 2007 first-person shooter game developed by 2K Boston, Not BioShock is a 2007 first-person shooter game developed by Irrational Games).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the best option is to change it to "Maddy" with footnote, like on the TowerFall or Maddy Thorson Page, and add EXOK to the developer list, since while EXOK seems to have largely superseded Maddy Makes Games, they're still registered as separate entities (Steam, Canada's Business Registry [1][2]). I see Spy-cicle's point, but I feel like in this case, where the name change is tied to the change in name of a person, it makes more sense to change it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Another user has already changed the company name to "Maddy"; I am now adding a footnote to explain, as I believe this ("Maddy" with footnote) to be most in line with the rough consensus here (and with similar arrangements on TowerFall and Maddy Thorson § Maddy Makes Games). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Celeste (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

starting reviewBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Blue Pumpkin Pie? No rush, of course (especially because it's the holiday season; happy holidays), but do you know when you'll have the time to begin the review? DecafPotato (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Patience, @DecafPotato. This is a huge article, and it has only been a few days after he claimed his spot. Some reviews have to wait a week or more. The Night Watch (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’m aware—I’m perfectly fine with waiting, my brain just likes to know when things will happen :) DecafPotato (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot to cover. I don't think it's an auto-fail. So I'll let you know as soon as I have a moment to point every concern.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thank you 👍 DecafPotato (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

FIRST THINGS FIRST

I attempted to fix some of the grammar issues and i also removed "The Game's" descriptors. example, the game's narrative is now just the narrative. There is a lot of "also" in the article. "Also" is used as an extension that didn't know how to fit in. I highly recommend reducing the amounts of "Also" in the article. Preferably to be removed altogether if possible.

LEAD

• It stars Madeline, a young girl with anxiety and depression who aims to climb Celeste Mountain.

^"stars" has subjective connotations. You can mention that she is the player character, or that she is the main protagonist in the plot.

 Done Changed to "The player controls"

• Development of Celeste began in August 2015, when Maddy Thorson and Noel Berry participated in a four-day-long game jam, in which they created Celeste for the PICO-8. Thorson, who served as the game's producer, and Berry, who served as the lead programmer, wanted to expand the PICO-8 game into a full release.

^I generally attempt to avoid the sentence "In which" unless it's absolutely necessary. "four-day-long game jam" is awkward to read. Perhaps just saying "A game jam for four days". Lastly, it is very akward hearing Maddy Thorson and Noel Berry be mentioned first, and their roles second.

 Done Changed the first sentence to "Development of Celeste began in August 2015, when game developers Maddy Thorson and Noel Berry participated in a game jam, where they created Celeste for the PICO-8." I have left the 2nd sentence for now as I believe it still works

• Celeste released on January 25, 2018, for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Microsoft Windows, MacOS, and Linux—it would release on Xbox One the following day, and on Google Stadia in July 2020.

^^I am Vehemently against Em-dashes in the lead, or in the majority of the body of articles. The sentence "It would" suggest a sense of retrospect. I don't recommend using it at all.

 Done Removed dash, changed to ", before being released"

• Upon release, it received wide acclaim—critics felt that it was one of the best games of its genre.

^^This is not reflected at all in the article.

 Done Changed to "Upon release, it received "universal acclaim" from critics, with multiple outlets describing it as one of the best video games of all time." which is reflected in the article.

• On September 9, 2019, a free downloadable content (DLC) expansion to Celeste known as Farewell was released. Since its release, Celeste has garnered a dedicated fandom and an active speedrunning community.

^^The first sentence sounds like a report, more than a summary of the article. The Second sentence is confusing, since the release of the "Farewell" DLC, or since the release of the game?

 Done Changed to "Since its release, Celeste has garnered a dedicated fandom and an active speedrunning community. On September 9, 2019, a free downloadable content (DLC) expansion named Farewell was released, introducing a new chapter to the game."

• Celeste's developers have stated that they do not intend to create a sequel, though a sequel to Celeste for PICO-8 titled Celeste 2: Lani's Trek was released in January 2021.

^This sentence is awkward. The "Legacy" section doesn't go into much detail either. Is there more information on why they chose to make a sequel despite aggressively stating they didn't want to make a sequel?

 Done I have clarified that the developers do not intend to create a sequel for the main game. "Celeste's developers have stated that they do not intend to create a sequel for the main game, however a sequel to Celeste for PICO-8 titled Celeste 2: Lani's Trek was released in January 2021."

GAMEPLAY

• Celeste is a masocore two-dimensional platform game.

^^Only one source so far is referencing the sub-genre. It's not a commonly used one, so I highly recommend cutting it out.

 Not done – it describes the game's difficulty, and the fact that it isn't commonly used should be solved with the wikilink. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Madeline, Celeste's player character, is able to run, jump, wall jump, wall climb, and dash in any cardinal or intercardinal direction.

^^There seems to be a lot of jargon terms such as "wall jump" and "wall climb" instead of just saying the basic description such as "jump off walls" or "climb walls". the term "Intercardinal direction" is not mentioned in the sources provided.

 Done – replaced with "jump off walls", "climb walls", and "eight directions", respectively. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Her ability to climb walls is limited to a stamina gague; she can only climb until the gague is depleted. However, her moveset is limited to these options, and additional abilities are instead granted by outside game mechanics.

^^The first sentence misspells "gauge". The sentence is awkwardly written and can express the information much more direct. The following sentence doesn't flow with the one previous. It may not even be necessary to mention that Celeste is limited to the move sets mentioned.

 Done – Fixed spelling error, combined info about the stamina gauge with the ability to climb walls, and removed info about the moveset being limited to the described options—they aren't introduced with "including", so it should be implied. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• One of which is a crystal, which allows her ability to dash to be refilled in midair otherwise, she can only dash again after touching safe ground.

^^Another group of sentences that are awkwardly worded.

 Done – Replaced "— otherwise," with just "rather than". DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Additional mechanics react to Madeline's dash, including "dream blocks" that transport her from one side to another when dashed into. moving blocks, which can transfer their momentum to Madeline when jumped off of, and bubbles that move when dashed into and platforms that only activate after Madeline dashes. Further mechanics, such as a grabbable jellyfish that functions as a parachute and exploding pufferfish, were added in the Farewell expansion.

^^The overuse of "mechanics" to explain gameplay features. It seems like these are obstacles specifically.

 Done – The Farewell mechanics are still described as mechanics, and I added a bit to explain the pufferfish. The others are now labeled as "obstacles", and were moved to after the Farewell mechanics to group mechanics and obstacles together. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Many compared Celeste to Super Meat Boy (2010), as both games have a high level of difficulty, though Celeste's difficulty can be lowered through the use of an optional "Assist Mode", which provides accessbility options such as a lowered game speed or unlimited use of the dash mechanic, as well as the option to grant Madeline full invincibility.

^^i'm seeing a pattern in the tone of the article,

Not done – please clarify – I've replaced "the dash mechanic", with "the dash ability" per comments above, but it's unclear what "the pattern" is. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is ALOT to unpack with this article. Alot of things to look into.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Blue Pumpkin Pie for providing your initial thoughts so quickly, and thank you for taking this onboard. It is, as you have said, a long article. I'll make a start on these changes now, and I look forward to your other feedback. Just for reference, it may be helpful to check out this discussion on the talk page from before this was brought to GAN. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 12:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I have made edits based on your feedback. What do you think? (Courtesy ping DecafPotato who has actively worked on this article as well as me) echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

@EchidnaLives: I'm noticing a pattern in the tone of the article that use sentence connectors like these: "which is", "such as", "one of which", and "as well as". It impedes on the encyclopedic tone to overly rely on them. I see a common problem of the article over-explaining.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It would help me immensely if the citations were moved to the bottom of the reflist (example: Lumines: Puzzle Fusion and Vib-Ribbon. I normally do it myself but for a 100+ refs, i don't have the time to do it myself. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie, I've responded to comments about the Gameplay section. DecafPotato (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for just a single ref to reflect "masocore" is not enough to use indiscriminately. You may add it in Reception section, if you feel the analysis deserves merit but with what you've shown, it doesn't appear to be universally accepted. Unless more reliable sources describe it as such, it shouldn't be used. WP:DUE applies. There are other ways to describe the difficulty.

For your second one, i clarified at my last statement the overuse of "Which is", "such as" "one of which", "as well as", or just those general tone-shifting Sentence connectors. It adds a less neutral tone, and more of an individual person speaking casually, rather than formally.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done – moved "masocore" bit to Reception, and fixed the overuse of "which is", "such as", etc. DecafPotato (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

quick change—I've moved it back to gameplay, but rather to where the Super Meat Boy comparisons are, and attributed the statement. What do you think of it there? DecafPotato (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: and @EchidnaLives:, the gameplay section was way too wordy with a lot of redundant explanations. It doesn't focus on just telling the information as direct and concise as possible. I still don't agree we should use "Mechanic" as a basic descriptor for multiple aspects. All games are made up of "mechanics", and because of that, should use more specific descriptors instead. No references mention a "Gauge" for climbing, and there is no gauge mentioned in the sources either, and no gauge reflected in the gameplay image either. I've decided to attempt to fix the gameplay section based on the immediate issues i can see, it may require more cleanup. I have a feeling the entire article was written the same way. So hopefully my edits paint a clearer picture of what needs to be done. I'm going to review the rest of the sections, but i would hope you review the rest of the article for similar issues.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

PLOT

• The setting and characters section may be too long and since the characters mentioned in the settings are all mentioned in the plot section, it seems redundant to try to split the description from the Story section. Also considering that the section is made up of "commentary", that information should go down to the development section instead.
• It may be cleared explained once the sections are merged together. But it's not clear why Oshiro chased Madeline out.
• The second half is confusing and goes too quickly. Badeline is described as the primary antagonist, but all Celeste did in the end was chase her, then apologize to her? And they reconcile. If this is an attempt to avoid spoilers, Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers. Especially if it makes the plot section confusing. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the lack of context may be an over-trimming—it was reduced to only the most important details. I'll try to add some context while also trying to keep the section short. DecafPotato (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also, is there any place you recommend putting the character info? Theo's role as a "lighthearted" counterbalance isn't something that is really part of the plot as much as it is the meta-role of his character, Madeline being trans is important but isn't part of Farewell's plot nor its marketing, Badeline being a personification could be incorporated, though her self-description as the "pragmatic" part of Madeline can't really, nor is her role as the antagonist something said in-game...I think it's more of a limitation of Wikipedia plot sections as a whole. I'll see what I can do, but any ideas are appreciated. DecafPotato (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The commentary for Celeste being trans although not explicitly related to the story, it is clearly related to development of the game since there's more info related to that than just the developer thought it was obvious. And should be moved there. Theo being a counterbalance to "badeline" can probably still make it in the plot section, but it's based on reviews, so it's a subjective interpretation more than an objective fact. Ao i don't think it's noteworthy.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

plot section is a bit beefier, but "setting and characetrs" has been merged into it + madeline being trans was put into development next to the other thing about Celeste having queer themes. DecafPotato (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The story is better. Although the conflict between Badeline and Madeline seems a little off. I still think theres plenty of room to condense it further. Oshiro events seem unnecessary to go into detail.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

DEVELOPMENT

I'm noticing a lot of tiny quotes that don't help readers understand the bare basics of what was happening during development, and what seems to sound like promote the word-choice of the developers. I recommend re-reading it through and ask yourself if the average reader understands exactly what it is intended with the quote. I'm going to cherry-pick some things to help you have a good idea. When reviewing the sources, the description isn't as obtuse and they're more direct. For the most part.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thorson and Berry approached the game as a single-player adventure, and Berry recalls that the full concept of Celeste grew "fairly organically" after that.

^^Its statements like these try to sound like Wikipedia is trying to conduct its own interview or Bibliography, rather than just sticking to the straight facts of the development. Is it necessary to note that Verry "recalled" and quote specific verbiage such as "Fairly organically"?

 Done – kept the information, but removed the comment from Berry. It's unnecessary, as stated. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• After the development of the PICO-8 version—known as Celeste Classic after the release of the 2018 game, the team wanted to expand the game with additional development time and less restrictions.

^^The side-note of the game being renamed to "Celeste Classic" after the release of the game disrupts the flow of the paragraph. maybe worth mentioning in the release section.

 Not done – It's put there because it's referred to as Celeste Classic for the entirety of the article, as saying "Celeste for PICO-8" constantly would be annoying. DecafPotato (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't reference Celeste Classic that often in the development section.

The important part is that it is referenced in the development section, so it should be explained there. Celeste Classic as a whole is all just development information, so information regarding it should be kept in that section unless necessary (in my opinion). DecafPotato (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the point initially. Your point was that it would affect readability because you'll have to refer to it as "Celeste for PICO-8". Which it doesn't because its not referenced as commonly. the current way is mentioned with em dashes seems like it trivializes the information. So based on how its trivialized in the development section, it can be given proper attention in the release section. I wont accept anything else on this one, DecafPotato. The goal is to reduce and reorganize information where it matters most. In the Development section, it doesn't matter that the game was renamed "after" the release of modern Celeste.

It wasn't the point initially because I changed my reasoning after more thought. I still believe that it should be included in that point of the article, but I believe that for an alternative reason, as your counterpoint was correct. And I also forgot to mention that I did change the text to no longer use an em dash, it instead says ... the PICO-8 version, retroactively titled Celeste Classic .... I believe this solves the concern about trivializing the information. And regarding the title change happening after the release of Celeste, I silently removed that (I also should have alerted you to that change, and that's on me) because it's not true—the source given is from 2016, well before the release of Celeste in 2018. However, it would be appreciated if you could show where in the Release section you think the information would fit. I think it would allow me to better understand your argument. DecafPotato (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• and the game's level design was noted by Shacknews and Kill Screen to have been reminiscent of levels created by Thorson in Super Mario Maker (2015).

^^Although it is noteworthy, I don't believe it belongs in the development section. Perhaps in Reception.

 Not done – While it is more of commentary, it's placed right next to Celeste's other gameplay inspirations, and it would be weird to separate that information in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thorson wanted Madeline's moveset to be as minimal as possible while still emulating the feeling of bouldering—which also inspired Madeline's limited stamina when climbing walls,

^^Once again, the break in dialogue with em-dashes and this need to use "which". it would be best to attempt to remove them altogether so sentences sound more intentional and direct.

 Done – As you've probably noticed by now, my writing style leans a lot on the em dash, lol. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The precise nature of Celeste required that Madeline's attributes were created from scratch, rather than based upon a pre-existing physics engine.

^^This sentence doesn't make sense.

 Done – Rewrote to be more clear. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Development of Celeste was supported by Nintendo during its last year,

^^The source says this in passing, but is there more information on this? The article seems to also credit Nintendo for an updated version of Stardew Valley and expanded version of Shovel Knight. So it could be more of an opinion piece.

 Not done – The source says that Stardew Valley and Shovel Knight were "courted" by Nintendo, and notes that they were old games. Whereas it directly states that Celeste was "supported" by Nintendo. This is a significant change in wording—"courted" means "please put this game on our system", and "supported" implies financial support to me, though drawing that conclusion would be WP:OR-y, so "supported" keeps the original wording. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the source says. There's not enough information to fully use it. And i question the legitimacy of the opinion piece since it is mentioned in passing. It does matter what kind of support Nintendo provided. If there is no other source that can verify what kind of support Nintendo provided, or if they helped with development, then its not worth keeping in the article.

 Done – Removed

• These mechanics were also designed to make it possible for the player to use them for their advantage, which allows the game to maintain the option of frame-perfect play while making the game "feel better" in a casual setting.

^^Once again, overly wordy and not direct to the point.

 Done – Rewrote and trimmed. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Celeste was further designed to make more difficult screens to be more visually simplistic and "easier to figure out".

^^Another quote that seems pointless to quote directly.

 Done – Trimmed. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• According to Thorson, Celeste tries "to gently push the player to do things that they thought [were] impossible for them"—however, systems like the strawberries, B-sides, and Assist Mode were designed to allow players to customize the game's difficulty,[45] and Thorson said that the ability of Assist Mode to make the game less challenging served as a counterbalance to the optional content such as strawberries, which made it more challenging.

^^This entire sentence is way too long and should be broken down.

 Done – Split into two sentences. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The themes of Celeste took inspiration by Studio Ghibli films such as Spirited Away (2001), though at the beginning of development, the team had little direction for the story. They knew that they wanted it to be "more introspective", in contrast to the more "extroverted" nature of TowerFall.[49]

^^Once again, it looks like too many points are trying to be combined in a single sentence. you'll have to re-organize it in a way that all the ideas are easier to understand.

Not done – please clarify – The quoted portion is two sentences. DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence starts off that they were inspired by Studio Ghibli films for the story, then adds an adendum that they didn't havve any direction for the story. Then the second sentence goes back to having an idea of what the story is. So the timeline of the story development is all over the place.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Rephrased the order

This is the start of what I'm getting at. I'll give you more room to work on the Development section and see if you can condense it. Part of me believes that the gameplay and difficulty/accessibility section could be one subsection rather than two and that its the superfluous, overly-worded nature that gives the illusion that needs to be two separate sections.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie – I've addressed the specific feedback (except for those marked as "not done", of course), and I'll tackle the general changes shortly. Thank you for your continued work reviewing this article! DecafPotato (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry for not really participating here, I've been kind of busy in other areas, but I should of been putting more effort into coming here. @DecafPotato, could I please work on the next set of feedback? Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course! DecafPotato (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I responded to the counterpoints. To make this review a little easier to read. I did "Ctrl+F" for these potential problematic word choices.

• "Though" appears in the article 16 times.
• "such as" appears 5 times
• "which" appears 24 times
• "these" appears 3 times
• Em dashes as a form of creating side points within the same sentence appears 38 times.

It would help with the tone if you were more direct and avoid using these is possible. its not always possible, but they are definitely used as a literary crutch and gives the article an informal tone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• When I said my writing style leans a lot on the em dash, lol, I was not exaggerating. But yeah, I've responded to the responses to the counterpoints, and I'll keep working on trying to trim the Develoment section. DecafPotato (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I highly recommend reducing the amount of em dash usage if you want to make more GAs. The overuse of em dashes gives the article an informal and sporadic tone. The overuse of them suggests one doesn't know how information should be done, so em dashes is the shortcut. According to Scribbr, "Em dashes can be used in pairs to mark off additional information that is not essential to understand the sentence." And according to UHV.edu, "The em-dash can be used to replace parentheses, colons, and commas. Generally, using the em- dash makes the writing style more informal—as if you were writing to an old friend."Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. DecafPotato (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other parts of the article that needs to be added to this review? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD, the "Music" and the Farewell portion of "Development" may need to be added—no point further in the article has been reviewed, though Blue Pumpkin Pie may just have had nothing to point out. However, "Marketing and release", "Reception", and "Legacy" still neeed to be reviewed. DecafPotato (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD: at this point, i'm tackling one section at a time. Each section requires a lot of work. And my time is limited. So the best way to optimize time and make sure progress is made is to only focus on one section. The Music i haven't had a chance to cover yet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to take as much time as you need—I much prefer a thorough review compared to a quick one. DecafPotato (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: I'm noticing a part of what makes the article superfluous and overly wordy is the fact that it misinterprets information.

• The initial prototype was titled "Everest", and its design as a whole initially lacked direction.

^^Listening to the podcast, that's not what they implied at all. They said the initial design was simple, and that the goal was only to just make a character climb a mountain. Saying they didn't have a lot of direction did not mean they lacked direction. Its certain sayings in passing that seems to fill up the development.

• Thorson and Berry later decided to approach the project as a single-player adventure, and Thorson's previous game, TowerFall (2013), inspired many mechanics and ideas that would later be included in Celeste

^^Because of the misunderstanding of the source before it, this sentence implies that they gained direction by making the project into a single-player adventure. the source in this sentence doesn't say that Towerfall inspired mechanics and ideas, only those lessons from Towerfall carried over.

If i keep finding misinformation, this will be automatic fail.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(responding to this one instead of @EchidnaLives because I was specifically pinged)

 Done – More closely matched the sources, as stated. DecafPotato (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie Heya, It has been 10 days since any comments or updates have occurred on this page. Is everything going well? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the rest of the edits.@EchidnaLives:, @DecafPotato: are you able to provide more edits to the tone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've been very busy recently and haven't had time to make the edits. I'll make an effort to work on it within the next few days. DecafPotato, feel free to go ahead and make the edits without me if you have time. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie, I believe I covered all the tone issues (if I haven't, ping me and I'll resolve them), so I'll leave the next set of feedback to EchidnaLives. (but for real this time) DecafPotato (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, I don't believe the article is ready. But I also don't have the time to fully review the article. It's not necessarily that you replaced the word "which", its the fact that the sentence structure is more repetitive that relies on terms like "Such as", "which", "where" "that". There's still the tiny quotes all over the article that don't paint a good picture on the development but rather a semi-interview of the developers. I don't think i can continue reviewing it. One of the hardest things that this article does is use a source, split up time stamps for a single sentence. And i don't think that is necessary. I will request WP:VG to see if someone can assist in taking over the review.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: @EchidnaLives: One of the key problems with the article is that it mixes certain stages of development together without clarity. For example, the article mentions that both in the "Conception" section and "Gameplay section" that Celeste's move set was designed to be "minimal". It looks like a lot more research needs to be done into forming a timeline, which ideas existed during the PICO-8 version, and which ideas were new or expanded on in the main version. At this time, I am more confident that this isn't ready for GA. It still needs a lot more work that requires the simple typo fix. I'm glad you're cutting down the word "which" but I'm going to remind you the over usage of the word "which" is a symptom, not the cause. The cause of the problem is using different statements into a single sentence and not knowing how to express them in an efficient manner.

Another problem is the over usage of quotes, the article seems to want to be in a sense an interview to Thorson and Berry. Rather than just stating the facts as objectively as possible. Here's an example of a few: "chaotic", "more methodical", "work in the player's favor whenever possible", "wrong way", "a couple of day's work". and this is only a small percentage of tiny quotes that aren't necessary.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this, you've been really helpful and hopefully this article can grow a lot from your feedback! echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Do Celeste mods deserve a section?

With the recent release of major fan project Strawberry Jam, a number of sources (like these) have covered the project and the Celeste modding community. However, I'm not certain on my own whether the modding scene deserves its own section, expanded information in an existing section, or no changes at all. Thoughts? 70.130.73.56 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be covered in the § Legacy section. czar 04:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsolescence of Ahorn

The page briefly mentions Ahorn as the tool used for making Celeste maps, however that fell out of use quite a while ago, and was replaced by Lönn. It's kind of a minor detail but I feel that it would be wrong to mention Ahorn without mentioning Lönn. I have very little experience with wikipedia editing so I don't have confidence in my ability to add it in myself, however if anyone would like to make that small correction it would do wonders for my OCD. Jaspersmg (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jaspersmg Heya! I've updated the page to add mention of Lönn, but if there is anything else you want to be included just let me know. Traditionallimb (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)