Talk:Kameo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 08:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several questions before I start the review:

Your rewrite seems to have overwritten the entire page's edit history. Is that really ideal? I would really love to compare the old version and the new version to see how much have been improved.
Does the game have a story? If it has, there should be a complete section talking about the story.
Does your tool works? It seems that many of the citations still aren't complete. I can't wait to see how it works actually. It seems like a very handy tool to me.

— AdrianGamer (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking forward to the review. I covered the game's story proportional to its importance in reliable, secondary sources. It isn't ideal, but the draft and the old version had conflicting edit histories and the draft didn't share anything besides its artwork, in terms of attribution. You can find the old edit history here: Kameo: Elements of Power. I wrote a jury-rigged tool to automatically pull and expand the bare URLs, but last I checked the GA criteria requires that there be a Reference section and that references exist, not that they need to be in the same format or indeed formatted at all. (Of course, I plan to eventually get to that, but not a top priority, if you know what I mean.) czar 18:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game was published under Microsoft Game Studios label.
The lead doesn't seem to be very proportional. Basic information, story, gameplay and development are put together in one single paragraph seems to be way too much.
Reviewers found the story and Kameo's character lackluster, but largely liked the other characters and the core morphing concept. They had high praise for the orchestra score and other technical features, apart from the game's camera, and noted the game's short length. - Can be merged together with the previous sentence.

I revised this but didn't think it wise to merge because the first sentence compares characters and the second sentence compares technical elements

including a free online cooperative mode upgrade - link cooperative

Already linked in the previous paragraph

Microsoft's new focus on games for its Kinect peripheral. - Rare focused on Kinect, not Microsoft.

Microsoft owned Rare and directed most of its internal assets to work on Kinect

Rare is still a bit more accurate than simply "Microsoft", but Microsoft is still right.

No gameplay screenshot?
The player controls the player-character with the left analog stick, the game's camera view with the right thumbstick, and the character attacks and abilities with the controller's triggers - Controls are WP:GAMECRUFT

Basic descriptions of controls, especially when coming from sources, shouldn't be gamecruft, no? Gamecruft is when it attempts to explain anything more than the basics. Keep in mind that this console was introducing some audiences to games, so a source wouldn't have written about basic controls unless it was important to spell out.

I generally think that controls are something to be avoided since they may be a bit too detailed for the article and too complicated for readers who are unfamiliar with the console, but your explanation sounds fair.

The game is structured such that new character abilities unlock just as their benefits are needed to solve a puzzle.[3] Thus the game's puzzles depend on combat more than logic. - Feel like something for the development section. It is talking about how they design these puzzles.

It's not talking about design choices, though—it's talking about how players progress through the game

can travel faster than the elemental warriors - What do you mean by "travel faster"? It is a bit unclear.
I think one of the problems with not having a story section is that it is a bit unclear when it comes to explain the gameplay section. For instance, I don't know about what Badlands is when I am reading the gameplay section.

The way it's phrased, I though one could assume that it's an overworld that connects the aforementioned areas

IGN wrote that the game had received more IGN editor coverage during its development than "almost any other single game" - When did he say that? I honestly don't think this sentence is necessary.
Phil Tossell described as "like Pokémon" - You can paraphrase that. This quote is a bit unnecessary.
game at Electronic Entertainment Expo, an annual video game conference - which year?

Doesn't say

the player would use a combination of Kameo's elemental warriors - their powers, not the warrior.

Not just their powers, though I would say the two are metonyms

The cooperative mode was also added retroactively, which challenged the level design, which had already been finalized. - Needs rephrase. Try "The cooperative mode was also added retroactively, which challenged the finalized level design."
But the biggest improvement was in the game's graphics and upgrades. - Don't start the sentence with a "but". This sentence sounds very subjective.

But there's nothing wrong with "But"

I thought generally speaking we shouldn't start a sentence with a "but".

Around the time of Kameo's release, lead designer George Andreas said that the original Kameo idea of finding and using monsters carried through to the final product. He saw the concept as having evolved and focused over time, as any project would, - It don't really fit this paragraph. It should be moved to the part about Pokemon in the first paragraph.
The project's biggest influences were ultimately Nintendo, Pokémon, and Resident Evil - ultimately is unnecessary. Shouldn't Pokemon be italicized?
Years later, Andreas reappraised and said that the game should never have been released and remains a sore subject for him to discuss - Any particular reason?

I think the rest of the paragraph answers this

and felt that there were enough ideas for a sequel within the new intellectual property if players were interested - Some sequel stuff.
and was among several sound designers working on the game's sound effects and voiceovers. - unnecessary.
Burke and Grant Kirkhope later returned to Prague to record the music for Viva Pinata. - Not about this game.
Downloadable content should be placed above the reception section, similar to how other articles are formatted.

The DLC chronologically followed the reviews and, one could argue, also responded to the reception

You don't really need to tell me Clayman comes from IGN every time you mention him. You only need to mention it once.

FAC reviewers want to see the reviewer's name every time because they're the author. But no one really cares about the author, so I think it's more important, as a courtesy, to name the website, whose opinion it represents. If you think it gets too much in some areas, let me know where.

Dave Halverson agreed that the multiple character options to represent a rare breadth of player choice - don't need "to"
Bramwell (Eurogamer), on the other hand, fought the controls and camera throughout the game. - How could a person "fought" the controls and camera? It seems a bit informal.

He felt that the controls worked against him—I think it's okay. Doesn't need to be so dry through and through. This is 25k of Kameo we're talking about...

and Bramwell (Eurogamer) was even eager to be finished - Need to be rephrased. What did he want to finish? The game or the puzzle?
had hopes for Kameo and Psychonauts to rekindle developer interest in the 3D platforming genre - wikilink Psychonauts
—but ultimately wrote that Kameo was proof that Microsoft had received "exactly what they paid for" in its acquisition of Rare - Why did he say that?

I think it's vague on purpose, meant to be a wry aside that Microsoft overpaid for a company with poor, idiosyncratic output and got just that kind of product

You can split a subsection talking about the cancelled sequel.

Is there a need? It's a short section

but the cancelation was not confirmed until Microsoft Game Studios vice president Phil Spencer did so in 2013 - Microsoft Studios, not Microsoft Game Studios

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I believe that it needs a story section, for better arrangement, or for consistency with other articles. I still think that the url issues should be dealt with as soon as possible. When all the issues are fixed, the article is good to go! AdrianGamer (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review. When you say the lede is too much, do you mean the lede is too long and needs things removed or that the first paragraph covers too much and should be split? If anything I'd paragraph break between the gameplay and the development, but I thought it worked better as a single paragraph. czar 07:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to split the paragraph. It feels like it isn't arranged well if all information, talking about different things, get combined together in one massive paragraph. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer, thanks again for the thorough review. I think I've addressed everything (or otherwise minded the rest), if you'll take a look. URLs need to be cleaned up for FAC but they should be fine for the GA criteria. It's going to take me longer to go through now anyways since they were converted from bare refs... czar 01:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the issues are fixed and the rationale provided above is reasonable, the article is good to go. Kameo is now a . Congratulations! Remember to fix the sources after this was promoted though. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]