Talk:Plants vs. Zombies (video game)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plants vs. Zombies (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit

Fwiw I've never played the game. Some comments:

• "with certain plants being more effective against each type" I changed it to "type" but I'm not sure if that's correct. I'm not sure what the sentence means
• "sun" is the singular and plural?
• "end of each row" I can't visualize this, so I tried to write it how I understood it
• I'm not sure if levels should be "2–1" (en dash) or "2-1" (hyphen) because 2–1 seems like a range to me. Maybe MOS:VG has some wise words. Case in point, "which is unlocked after level 3–4" sounds like it's either unlocked after 3 or 4.
• "Zombot" probably should explain or remove
• The characters section may be a bit too in-depth. I tried to not mess with it too much, but I think at FAC they will request it be cut down.
• Donnelly's comments seem a bit contradictory
• "as part of a soundtrack album" or "as a soundtrack album" ? If it includes all the tracks it should be the full thing right? :P

Anyway, awesome job on this worthy FAC candidate. Let me know if my work is satisfactory and if you have any questions; I can do more, esp. since this is for FAC. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "sun" is both the singular and plural in this case. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Adjusting a line

"During the nighttime stages, the player uses the lower-cost fungi plants due to the lack of sun generation at night."

Shouldn't it be "can use"? It's not that the player is compulsed to use lower-cost fungi plants, but it's that the player can use them due to their fit for said nighttime conditions. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe this is some kind of a "the player (generally) uses X", which is why it's written as "the player uses X"? In that perspective, it makes sense to me. But I will add "[...] lack of natural sun generation at night", because Sunflowers and Sunshrooms make the majority of the sun generation and will make up for the loss in sun generated via accumulation on the lawn. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Article feedback

From a previous edit I did, accidentally adding to an already archived page:

“ Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

”

These are the comments I had for the article.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Uh, the candidacy is not archived yet. You can still add the comment. Lazman321 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was. What is this "archive" thing though? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"George Fan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect George Fan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#George Fan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"social gaming"

I was going to try adding in a link to "social gaming" article, but looks like the article for social game is a disambig that has the potential to become a full-on article as a non-disambig. For now, I didn't add a link to the article. My original intent was to guide readers to what "social gaming" is. Mobile gaming would be useful link too, as this will explore more about what mobile gaming is, probably one of the few major aspects that can be further explored from this article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: You could link it to social-network game. Lazman321 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Thanks. I was thinking something along the lines of that, but glad I am told that this is the right place to link to. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Gees, wasn't quite sure where to place the links for mobile gaming and social network gaming, but I placed it under Legacy, even though I initially was meant to place it in the leading section. What do you think? Should it have been placed at the leading section? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: The links can be in both the lead and the legacy section. It isn't against MOS:DUPLINK to do so. Lazman321 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was wondering how multiple links of the same type are handled in Wikipedia. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

More content addition

@Lazman321: Pinging because of making sure you're aware of this. I have added a little more on the Plants vs Zombies article by adding a part expanding on why Fan originally ditched the idea of a vegetarian alien apocalypse where the player nurtures plants to also simultaneously defend their garden. More specifically, I made these edits here. "Simplifying the gardening system in the game, he restructured the main aspects of game to fit more specifically into the tower defense genre." says what is added by me. The sources there are this and that (well, this specific page that is...) to back up. I really wanted to make that edit because we shouldn't neglect that Fan made a critical decision to ditch the excessive gardening concepts due to the excessive tediousness in such gameplay, and instead craft new ideas that would eventually transform the entire Plants vs. Zombies into a more traditional tower defense game with extra uniqueness. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Two things played in — the idea of defending against the aliens while tending the garden, nurturing and watering the plants. That felt like a mismatch of gameplay, though. On one side, it just felt tedious to garden while you were trying to fend off the aliens. So what if you just planted the cabbage-pult and it shot right there? That tended to work better. It was more like a traditional tower defense game, where you could build a maze and trap the enemies." - VentureBeat source

"Plants Vs Zombies was originally a lot like Insaniquarium in that you’d nurture the plants by watering and growing grass, but it turned out to be too tedious. There was too much to do and not in a fun way, so I took all the nurturing out." - next-gen.biz source.

Which is basically most of what I picked out to get the listed me-written point above. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also made several other edits here and there. It would be nice if my edits be checked, because I'm not so sure whether the information stuff I added was necessary. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also moved my edits into a new paragraph under "Design". Not sure if I can incorporate more ideas into the rest of the Development section into its other subsections. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is what my edits look now: here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are fine. Lazman321 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Does it need any improvements? I kinda think it could be trimmed a little bit, but not so much. The content feels complete for that paragraph, but there seems to be a lot of words there. For now, I do think the paragraph is fine, but I'm just asking if more could be done to make the paragraph better. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Blover

108.20.209.192, please do not re-add the Blover statement. There used to be a statement about Blover, but it was removed during the Featured Article Candidacy, though he reasoning wasn't explained upon. While it is true that Blovers can blow away Balloon Zombies, Cactus's abilty to pop Balloon Zombies' balloons already serves as a good example of a zombie's weakness to a particular plant. The example, in particular, is backed up by both sources. Meanwhile, the Blover statement is only backed up by one of the sources. The Eurogamer source makes a passing mention of Blover along with Cactus (called Cacti in the source due to being plural in context) when talking about Balloon Zombie and his weaknesses. However, Blover isn't even referred to by name, being called "Blower" in the source. That, along with the GameSpot source mentioning Cactus but not Blover and it being difficult to describe what a Blover is because of the source discrepancy makes it pointless to add the Blover statement. Again, please do not re-add the statement. Lazman321 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Looks like it was re-added again. The statement itself is okay, but I do agree about the concern about verificability that the Featured Article status desires. Not sure about what I myself would do here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Number of Types of Zombies

Does anyone have a source verifying that the number of the types of zombies for PvZ is 51? The source provided is the Suburban Almanac, but online images/sources of the almanac show that it only lists 26 zombies, although there are several other variations attributed through other game modes that are not present on the almanac, although I could not find anywhere stating the number of types as 51- VickKiang (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I have modified the 51 types of zombies into 26 types of zombies as that is what was stated by the official website (https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/plants-vs-zombies/plants-vs-zombies) and many other sources, whereas the former statistic is only supported by a single blog. I am unsure whether the statistics provided indicates the original design and that the amount of zombies is subsequently permutated into 26. Nevertheless, the number of the types of plants for the player's arsenal is stated to be 49 types, which is consistent with the suburban almanac. Here is the quote from the original website:

'Take on 26 types of zombies...'.

Additionally, the suburban almanac lists 26 based on all images I can find. If the number of the types of zombies is reoriented into 51, could you please subsequently provide a source on this talk page? Many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As the primary contributor for this article, I have to say thank you for corrections. You are correct that there are officially 26 zombies in Plants vs. Zombies. I have no idea where the 51 zombies statistic came from and how this slipped by the Featured Article Candidacy. Thanks. Lazman321 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No worries- VickKiang (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Demo Play

Edit: I have modified the levels available in the demo version from the previous data 3-2, which shows a discrepancy from the source (3-4). If this should be changed, please add a message on this talk page displaying the reference that concurs with the former data. Thanks again- VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Java ME version?

Currently the article doesn't mention the Java ME (J2ME) version, and a quick Google search indicates that it exists, but I was unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this version to incorporate into the article. If anyone can find something covering this that would be good. Waxworker (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Fan 2018 (cropped 1).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

GOTY release date

A Game of the Year edition was released on July 11, 2010.

Readme.html[1] says the build date of GOTY edition is July 20, 2010. Please verify the date in the article. --枰 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This link doesn't verify the release date of the GOTY edition. It makes no mention of a GOTY edition. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean in the section § Promotion and release, it says GOTY edition was released on July 11, 2010, but readme file of GOTY edition says the build date was July 20, 2010. A game cannot be released before it was built, so the date in that section need to be checked. --枰 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you do understand games get updates and patches, which changes the build date? The link you've provided doesn't not make any claim to be the "first" readme file of the GOTY edition, nor does it claim to be the readme file of the GOTY edition at all. -- ferret (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have found more ehh... evidence(?), written below. --枰 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the date of the reference does not match the date in the source. --枰 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

These two archives[2][3] should prove that GOTY edition became available on the PopCap site between July 19, 2010 and July 21, 2010. --枰 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I would take the unclear date out and just say "July 2010". There's also another problem here. I tried to verify the "July 11" date. The currently in use source, Destructoid, claims to have been published on July 11, hence the date is set to that... However, the actual archive of that Destructoid article says it was published "July 29", and does not otherwise state a release date at all. So I wonder if someone vandalized this at some point. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at the Destructoid source, and you’re right on the date. I don’t think it was vandalism though. I think I might’ve just accidentally swapped the date with the date of the version’s release on Steam. Though I’d personally go with the date proposed by the poster, in the interest of following policy on WP:Original research, perhaps it might be best to go with just saying “July 2010” as proposed by Ferret. Lazman321 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

July 11 is definitely wrong based on what I've found. But that doesn't mean the build date in the readme file is correct, as it was probably just before the actual release. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems like just saying "July 2010" is the best choice for now. Unfortunately no certain date was found. --枰 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)