Jump to content

Talk:OneShot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOneShot is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 10, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2023Good article nomineeListed
December 21, 2023Peer reviewNot reviewed
January 19, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Requested move 21 June 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move. (non-admin closure) KSFT (t|c) 00:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


OneShot (video game) → OneShot – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS. There is no other media called "OneShot" (without the space or dash in between). A hatnote can be used if there remains confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - looking at the dab page it is clear that the various forms of writing "One shot" require disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:SMALLDETAILS says that when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered. When this article was created, I explicity chose to do so, as OneShot isn't really notable enough to have an undisambiguated title without viewer misdirection.
    Support - Based on WP:SMALLDETAILS, disambiguation is not necessary; no other article title possesses OneShot as one word. - Axisixa T C 02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Too many other One Shot. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. No other article has "OneShot" spelling and no disambiguation is needed. A hatnote can direct to One shot (disambiguation). I admit I am confused by the opposite interpretation of SMALLDETAILS. Even the examples given there are exactly for a case like this where a spelling variation disambiguates the topic. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that WP:SMALLDETAILS would usually mean that, but as I stated above, it does make an exception for when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA. Although the example for this case is far less disambiguous than OneShot (which does indeed bear more similarity to the examples you mentioned), such an requirement is not included in the text of the rule. - Axisixa T C 11:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand how "renaming to less ambiguous page name [..] without wandering from CRITERIA" applies here. "OneShot" does not have other names. Say, the game was also commonly known as "OneShotOneKill", but it wasn't the primary name. In this case, one could argue "OneShotOneKill" disambiguates much better than "OneShot" because of the other topics sharing the shorter name, but still following WP:CRITERIA and being an alternative name. So we could apply this SMALLDETAILS exception then. But that's a hypothetical scenario that doesn't apply to most cases, because most subjects have just one name, like this game. Adding "(video game)" isn't an alternative title to be considered by WP:CRITERIA. It's a disambiguation, and SMALLDETAILS applies before such disambiguation. If one adds "(video game)", then of course SMALLDETAILS no longer applies. But that's because disambiguation was applied before considering if the original name was sufficient, which is exactly what SMALLDETAILS says it (could) be. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean; although the clause that I referenced in WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't explicitly exclude the disambiguation that the rest of the rule deals with, it makes far more logical sense in terms of the rule's intentions. I've changed my vote to a Support. - Axisixa T C 02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More about the Freeware Version

[edit]

This page seems to only talk about the Steam version. I think it should clarify what also aplies to the steam version and what doesn't when it comes to the plot and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLisDreaming (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GAN?

[edit]

@Mir Novov: pinging you since you created the article & did notable expansions. After reading the article it seems that it could go for GAN or is at least very close. What do you think? Since I'm also a fan of the game, it would be nice to see it reach that status. Might open a PR to see what can be improved. Skyshifter talk 00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately i'm not able to be hugely active for the time being so I won't be able to participate much, but this seems like a good idea and I was aiming to eventually bring it to that level. Only issue is that IIRC a few of the sources could be more reliable and it might be difficult to find good ones to replace them (when I first wrote the article the game was barely notable, though it's increased in prominence since then). ― novov t c 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free images

[edit]

@Skyshifter: since you mentioned it in the edit summary, from my understanding multiple non-free images in a VG article is fine provided there is sufficient justification to do so. There are plenty of VG articles that do that, cf. Portal 2 (which was approved as GA with multiple images). However, the specifics on what is allowable depends on the nature of the images and the prose surrounding it; the relevant policies are WP:NFCC and MOS:VG#Screenshots and cover art.

  • All images must meet all 10 WP:NFCC criteria.
  • According to MOS:VG, one image is implicitly notable for the Gameplay section, and additional images must be justified by sources (in prose or directly in the image caption, but that ofc should still relate to the prose around it either way). Currently, I wouldn't say the image in the Plot section meets that, unfortunately. Even if you added some sources, I'd recommend replacing it another one that better shows off the game's atmosphere, as I originally made it to show off the gameplay and IMO it's not really that good at doing anything else.

― novov (t c) 06:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mir Novov:, alright. I think the current one could work for showing the game's "dark atmosphere", but maybe it should be outside the ram puzzle indeed. I'll try to look for a screenshot that better show the game's atmosphere. Skyshifter talk 13:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Plot Edit

[edit]

In the plot section, the second sentence is as follows: "They interact with a computer, which addresses the player by a name derived from the computer's login name via an external dialog box." This sentence is a bit confusing - the term "computer" here is used to refer to both:

- An in-game computer - The real-world computer that belongs to the player of the game (which the login name is derived from)

This is a very important part of the game's plot, as it's where the metafictional elements of the game first make themselves apparent; I think it would be good to rewrite this to make it less confusing. That said, I've tried a few rewrites, but I find that they're all pretty awkward. Would anyone else be willing to give this a shot? (At least one shot, perhaps? I'm sorry.)

Also, please feel free to say if you think a change is not necessary.

SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's not exactly the easiest thing to write within the constraints of Wikipedia's style of plot summary. I've given it a go but it's still far from optimal IMO. ― novov (t c) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a lot better - I added a few more words to clarify that the login name comes from the player's computer. Would it be good to add something making it clear that the player is not prompted to enter this information in Oneshot? Some might think the player was prompted to give a username, and that the computer just repeats that username. SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"login name" makes it pretty clear that's not the case IMO. ― novov (t c) 21:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I can agree on that. SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:OneShot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTarantula (talk · contribs) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This will be my first GA review, so I'm going to ask a Good Article mentor to help me. Apologies in advance if I do mess up anything. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTarantula: thank you for reviewing this article. Is it okay if I already respond to some points or should I wait for you to finish the review? Skyshiftertalk 17:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to celebrate my birthday, so I'll try to finish this up as fast as I can. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday! Skyshiftertalk 04:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TYSM! You can't really see me behind the screen, but I'm currently smiling. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: I'm almost finished with the review, and I've made some considerable progress. Feel free to respond to some of the points I've made. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 18:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Overall grammar prior to GA review was clear and concise and did not contain any typos. Technical terms (e.g. "Nintendo Switch dock") have been clarified.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead section looks sufficient after GA review's feedback. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. There were not any words that were on the "words to watch" list. Plot section is not in an in-universe perspective. Article does not include any lists.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Article contains reference section and is in the correct place.

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Per WP:VG/S, all of the citations come from reliable sources. Self-published media including YouTube videos and blog posts are only used to verify facts only the developers know (e.g. the fact that Niko's gender is intentionally ambiguous or that OneShot was not influenced by Undertale).

2c. it contains no original research.

Article does not contain original research.

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

A concerning amount of direct quotes are used in the reception section. There is not any plagiarism in the article; the highest similarity is from a review. Copyvio report can be found here. Once the reception section is taken care of, I will pass GA criterion 2D.

Update: After a period of time, the nominator has paraphrased many of the direct quotes. The highest-ranked violation is at a miniscule 3.8%. Therefore, all the copyright violations are taken care of.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

The article writes about the game's story, development, gameplay, and reception—material that is adequate for a video game article.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Plot does not contain fancruft. Article does not go off-topic.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Article is neutral and does not try to promote the game positively. In other words, the reception section describes praises and criticisms without adding in the editor's own opinion.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No recent edit wars have happened, according to the article's history.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

All three images have valid fair use rationales.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Captions are suitable, and images provide context for the reader.

7. Overall assessment.

The cat goes meow. Amazing game and article, glad I could review it.

Important issues / additional comments

[edit]

Lead section

[edit]

Gameplay

[edit]

Plot

[edit]

"Solstice" path

[edit]
  • After the completion of the game... - rephrase to "After completing the game"
  • Initially, it is identical to the main game, aside from Niko possessing the Author's journal from the Barrens early. -> "The story is identical to the main game until Niko possesses the Author's journal from the Barrens."
    • Niko starts the game with the journal right away. Also, the story is identical for a while even with Niko already possessing the journal. I've changed "early" to "since the beginning" to emphasize this. Skyshifter talk 22:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they enter the internals of the World Machine, "taming" it and reversing its destructive behavior - Scarequoting "taming" feels wrong. Replace phrase with "they enter the World Machine's inner system, where they deactivate and reverse its destructive behavior."
  • Niko places the sun at the Tower and restores the world, reverting the death of characters, and Niko returns home. - This sentence contains a few errors. One: The word "Tower" was not capitalized before. Two: "at" -> "on". Three: Wait, what? The characters died earlier in the story? (I didn't get enough sleep last night, so I may forget things here and there.) Four: "reverting the death of characters" -> "resurrecting several characters".
    • One: changed. Two: changed. Three: Yes, a few deaths happened, but they're too specific to mention (Silver's death mentioned in passing). I think the reversal of deaths is still relevant to cite though. Four: "resurrecting several characters" seems a bit strange to me, I changed to "resurrecting the characters that had died" (which I have no idea if it's good either...) Skyshifter talk 22:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

[edit]

Reception

[edit]
  • I've spotted a lethal amount of direct quotes and the word "said". I'll try to help you paraphrase material so you can pass criterion 2D.
  • You don't have to put the publication where they're from after the surname (e.g. Borja Ruete of MeriStation, then Ruete (MeriStation)). Surnames are enough.
  • Not sure why the last sentence of the first paragraph is necessary; it only praises the game's concept. I feel as though the first paragraph should only consist of Metacritic and OpenCritic scores.

Story

[edit]

Art direction

[edit]
  • Rutledge (Hardcore Gamer) commended the art... -> "Rutledge commended the art, stating that OneShot's soundtrack and world design fit together."
    • That would be just a repetition of the soundtrack paragraph though (stated that the game's soundtrack perfectly matched its mood, with each area having an appropriate theme).
  • Remove comma between "that" and "although".

Gameplay

[edit]

Soundtrack

[edit]

World Machine edition

[edit]

Direct quotes

[edit]
  • Note: I will use boldface to indicate direct quotes in my changes.
  • For the reception section, direct quotes should be used sparingly. Too many of them may be a copyright violation, and thus this article would fail criterion 2D.
  • ...and one of those that hooks the player instantly and traps from beginning to end. -> "for a game considered by him to be short but [captivating]."
  • ..."it's lovely growing closer to Niko as the game progresses." -> "said that it was lovely forming a friendship with Niko throughout the game".
  • ..."nearly always contain[s] a moment that will make you smile" -> "was of a wholesome nature."
  • Ruete (MeriStation) opined that, although the illustrations were not "spectacular", "the set of characters and settings look quite neat". -> Rephrase to "Ruete praised the character and setting design, but criticized that the graphics were repetitive as a result of the game being developed in RPG Maker."
  • ...the art during the game is extremely humble. - Rephrase entire sentence to "Nafria wrote that the graphics were humble but kept players hooked."
  • ..."It does stuff with my PC that I didn't know games could do." -> "Walker felt that his experience with OneShot's fourth-wall breaking gameplay was unique."
  • ..."the feeling of moving around the world is relatively boring and even unintuitive". -> "walking around the game's individual environments felt unintuitive."
  • ..."it is not brilliant at all, ending up being a series of melodies and sounds typical of any generic role-playing game" -> "it is typical and not brilliant."
  • "a bit on the limited side", "a handful of nice emotional tracks nudge the sound design firmly to a successful if not always pleasant level" -> "although it was limited, they felt as though the sound design paired well with the soundtrack."
  • "loses a little bit in the transition", "but once you've been playing for a little while it's easy enough to lose yourself in the illusion of its recreation." -> "...lost some of its metafictional elements but in return kept parts of the gameplay found in the original PC version."
    • I don't know if I like that phrasing because that's not really mentioned clearly in the review. I did a different rephrasing and kept the "lose yourself" quote since I think it's too unique. Skyshifter talk 00:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTarantula: All done! Skyshifter talk 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll do one last copyedit to the article and update my GA criteria table. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Skyshifter talk 11:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured article - an idea for a fanart

[edit]

Given this article on OneShot have been featured today, this little event could use a picture of Wikipe-tan playing this very game. Cheers. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Universal acclaim"

[edit]

@MapReader: I don't see how removing "universal acclaim" is the solution here — not only that, I don't see where is the problem. The paragraph begins with "According to review aggregator website Metacritic" and presents the ratings for the PC and Switch versions, plus "generally favorable reviews" for the PC version. It seems very clear and unambiguous that "universal acclaim" is taken from Metacritic — that's why it's in quotes, just like "generally favorable reviews". Even if that wasn't the case, why not a reword instead of removing something that is clearly in the source and is standard to multiple FAs citing Metacritic? Skyshiftertalk 14:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: Can we discuss here? Skyshiftertalk 17:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears quite straightforward to me. The wording in the article is "..received "universal acclaim", with a score of 92 out of 100". The word "received" is in editorial voice - i.e. is presented as the view of the WP article, not as a quote from Metacritic, which is clearly wrong. And the score of 92/100 with 8% negative reviews clearly does not amount to acclaim that is universal - i.e. from everyone. The words I deleted add absolutely nothing - and indeed are misleading - compared to the straightforward fact that Metacritic assesses 92% of the reviews as positive. MapReader (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MapReader: Yes, according to Metacritic, the Switch version received "universal acclaim". This is verified in the source and, in the article, "universal acclaim" is inside quotation marks and attributed to Metacritic (as the paragraph begins with "According to review aggregator website Metacritic"). I don't see how that can be interpreted as being some Wikipedia interpretation. But if you interpret it that way, you can suggest a reword. Regarding the "universal acclaim" itself — yes, it wasn't 100/100, but that's how Metacritic (not us) assesses the reviews for this game: as "universal acclaim", and so that is included in the article and attributed to them. I really fail to see what is the problem. Again, this is standard wording for multiple FAs citing Metacritic, which is another thing to note: the article passed GA, FA, and appeared as TFA without this ever being a complaint. Skyshiftertalk 17:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a sentence starting with "according to review aggregator website Metacritic" presented as the view of the WP article? The relevant MOS recommends using Metacritic's qualitative summary. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed on MapReader's talk page several times, they're the only person I've seen removing this, they've done it across many articles, including edit warring here. It's standard practice to include and they have no consensus to remove it. Indagate (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OneShot&oldid=1234335017"