Talk:Hydrophobia (video game)

Comments

I believe the game will also be released for the ps3

The location of the sequel's location (Boston) was revealed on PS3 Attitude along with the existence of the game. Not Eurogamer. In fact, the Eurogamer article that's quoted clearly states that the source of the information is PS3 Attitude.

Therefore it's superfluous to quote the Eurogamer article [12] when the original quote [5] covers everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.196.148.177 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable reference

PS3 Attitude is a wordpress blog. Is there any reason why we're considering it a good source? --Teancum (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

References for expansion

• GameXplain video interview

For expansion --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Please keep an eye on reception (and intro) - it looks like it has been edited by non-neutral parties on both sides. The word "just" implies the Metacritic score is dreadful, when it signifies "mixed" reviews both good and bad. The "majority of reviews" are not in the 70-80 range - there are a heck of a lot more giving it less than 70. Finally, I'm not sure 9,000 sales corresponds to it selling "well". 62.56.122.191 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this reception edit (as well as others in the past) was made by Blade Interactive, who are connected to Dark Energy Digital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.122.191 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely hesitant to allow an attack on the developers, when on the inverse one of the reviewers who the developer "attacked" has been reported as having a history of not finishing reviewed games, yet saying he has. --Teancum (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack in the slightest. The developer has quite clearly reacted in an unusual way to what appears to be unanimously agreed criticism of various aspects of their game, and it is very much worth noting. Furthermore, not only is your personal opinion on Jim Sterling unimportant, but also apparently irrelevant as if you've read the article from the reference you'll know that how much of it he completed had very little to do with the aforementioned reaction from the developers; their ire was also directed at other reviewers. 62.56.117.136 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you have such a specific interest in Hydrophobia. This set of IPs 62.56.*.* has pretty much centralized all edits except for a few on this article. It seems... strange. And how is it a "unanimously agreed criticism of various aspects of the game"? The game has received the very definition of mixed reviews, because it also received high marks from some reviewers. Additionally, the "attack" on Edge Magazine is one that developers and publishers often rebut against [1]. Fact is, devs/publishers get upset if they feel you didn't truly play their game, and often ask for a rewrite, update, or addendum. Ars Techinica's article then leads to VG247's, where you can hear the commentary by the developers, and while frustrated, they try to stay professional. The second section of the Ars Technica article, "Negative Tweets are SERIOUS BUSINESS", is why I single Sterling out, as the first section is explained above. Here Ars makes no effort to contact Dark Energy Digital to get their side of the story. The only "side" of their story they have is what they've selectively reposted from the VG247 article. How do we know that the perspective is not skewed? And why did I focus on Sterling specifically? Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources states Destructoid is a situational source. Of Destructoid, it says "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such." - thus Sterling specifically must be proven as reliable or unreliable. I have used his reviews on other games, but only in the form of an occasional comment, or in some cases, when reviews for that game are scarce. Given the situation, however, it seems questionable. As the Ars Technica article makes no effort whatsoever in contacting and getting direct quotes or opinions from the devs, it fails WP:NPOV. I have removed the statement yet again. If you feel it is necessary to include, you need to include their side of the story in a neutral way, using the VG247 article. --Teancum (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead length and summary

WP:LEAD states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Removing the second paragraph eliminates several important points, including sales, the polarized view of critics on the game, and the developers reaction with the release of the Pure title update. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

300px cover art

This is largely directed at Postwar, but may be relevant to others as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:Bulletstorm#300px box art on the issue, since it also affects that page (and there seems no good reason to have multiple discussions). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)