Talk:Sacrifice (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Sacrifice (video game) 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 19, 2011.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Misc[edit]

The article has no mention of a boon from that mission, but as I played it through, I did get it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.150.81 (talkcontribs) 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the exact conditions of that, but perhaps it's that I had every manalith in control by the end (or the last one was just building when I won, maybe it counts as a built one too..).

Could some consider Sacrific the spiritual successor to Magic Carpet? GoldDragon 03:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

This article reads like a game guide. This is one of the things that Wikipedia is not.--Drat (Talk) 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this like a game guide? It doesn't even cover an actual play-through. I'm removing the tag... put it back if you have a more specific critique.Oxryly 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This article lists all spells and all NPCs, which is the kind of content appropriate for a game guide. I'm reinserting the tag. If there is no significant clean-up made to these sections (meaning perhaps that there is no encyclopedic content there that could be properly integrated into the article), then I might cut the whole sections. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SacrificeBox.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SacrificeBox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2009 Rewrite[edit]

In the next several days, I am going to rewrite the article to conform to Manual of Style, guide for layout, and WikiProject Video games's guidelines, using reliable sources to provide verification for the information.

Basically, this will solve the tags that have been placed at the top of the article, as well as several other violations of policies and guidelines. The end product will be an article that talks of the game in real-world terms, to both gamers and non-gamers. Information about the game's development and reception will play an equal or more substantial part than the gameplay (which should give layman a good general idea of how the game is played) and single-player story.

The aim is to get this article to Good article status or even better, to be a Featured article. For samples of my past video game articles that are FA or GA, refer to Giants: Citizen Kabuto and Freelancer (video game). Jappalang (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: rewritten. Trying a new approach, so there are no tables of scores; such lists seem practically useless and come across as a bunch of statistics that does not really give objective treatments to the fun or design of the game. If one reviewer is especially notable (like Siskel and Ebert for movies), then there might be some recognition with their rating. Next step is to go for peer reviews and assessment. Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A-class review[edit]

I'll support this article's A-class status. User:Krator (t c) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I re-read it, some things: Images: File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg has the same description as File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg. And the latter seems to be intended to showcase graphical quality. It doesn't do it that well (worse than the first image of the article), and non-free image nuts on this website, in light of future FA-class ambitions, will probably want to see it removed.

Jargon in Gameplay: Some concepts used in the gameplay section are rather hard to understand without having played the games or a PhD in video game jargon. I've last played this game in 2002 or so, and from this article, I cannot understand what a "manahoar" and a "sac doctor" is. Being more descriptive (for example, reminding the reader that souls are a finite resource, and that the sac doctor is important because of that) might help. The sentence explaining manahoars is generally incomprehensible for the layperson. As a suggestion, perhaps explain these creatures above the others, in the sections that deal with mana and souls respectively?

Some random jargon:

"The highest level combat spells"

"regeneration rate"

User:Krator (t c) 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the "highest level" and "regeneration" to simpler terms (though at the expense of more words). As for manahoars and sac doctors, I am uncertain what is the issue since the third paragraph has described their functions (non-combatants who help to recharge mana, and who convert souls and sacrifices respectively). Can you clarify what is lacking or suggest what can be done? As stated in their FURs, the creatures image is to illustrate their artistic design, while the tornado image is to help readers understand the perspective and graphical quality of the spell effect. It is unlikely to capture both into a single image that is of low enough resolution to clearly depict them. I have hopes that they would pass muster at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll reconsider the point on manahoars and sac doctors, it's not really that big of a deal. The image is neither - I think it's good, just warning you it might not fly in FAC. I'll support A-class then. Get someone else to do that and you've got it. User:Krator (t c) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - after looking over the article and the comments here I'm cool with everything. I'm not a big fan of not having Template:VG reviews, but it's not totally necessary, and it's still well written. --Teancum (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
With two people supporting A-class, I will give Sacrifice the rating. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

Is it the intention to claim that heavily focus on resource gathering and management is a feature of many games in 2011, or in 2000? If the former, then the word contemporary is inappropriate. If the latter, it is not an error, but may not be a clear phrasing for the reader, especially on the Main Page.

I'd like to suggest that a more formal term replace "heavily focus" in the phrase: is the adverb heavily really applicable to the verb to focus? Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not certain how "Unlike many contemporary real-time strategy games, Sacrifice does not ..." was not clear in pointing those games as in 2000, but I changed it to "Unlike many of its contemporary real-time strategy games, Sacrifice does not ..." if that makes it clearer. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As for "heavily", I am also not sure what is the issue with it. The mechanics of the early RTS games placed great emphasis on having gathering a large pile of resources to build huge armies. Is the point that "heavily" is redundant when paired with "focus", or that "heavily focus" is an inappropriate (in encyclopaedic terms) phrase? Jappalang (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As regards "contemporary", my concern was simply that misapplication of the term is so frequent: glad to see that you were using it correctly. I wonder whether most readers appreciate the nuance, and how many simly misinterpret the claim.
My dislike of "to heavily focus" is that it is informal, almost to the point of being slang-ish, esp as it was to appear on the main page. A more appropriate emphatic adverb, better compliant with formal encyclopaedic tone, should not be beyond us: if it is, then I would query the need for an adverb at all. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware "to heavily focus" is informal; thank you for the information. I hope "places little emphasis" is an adequate replacement with the suitable formality. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical Info[edit]

Could the minimum/recommended system requirements be added? Also, what language was the game written in?Smallman12q (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources have given information on what language the game was written in, so I am afraid that request cannot be fulfilled. As for the minimum system requirements, I have to look for a reliable source for this so it might take a while. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Specs added Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and Wikipedia's Failure[edit]

This "Featured" article is a perfect example of how Wikipedia, as a whole, has failed, and needs replacement. According to your own rules, Wiki editors.

This article starts with three long introductory paragraphs without substantiation. It's hard to count how many Wiki guidelines just those three paragraphs violate. Original research? Synthesis? How to? Overlinking?

That all might be written down to the usual fandom and inept authorship. But this is an example of an article that -- quite contrary to guidelines -- ascended to Feature status. Without professional review, or indeed apparently without any proper review at all.

And it was then promted as a Featured Article on Wiki's main page. What, exactly, "encyclopedic" is this article claimed to accomplish? A comprehensive list of published marketing tripe and published reviwer opinions?

And very much most importantly, why was this allowed to be displayed as an exceptional article?

It's a mess. An unreadable mess unsuitable for either a fan magazine or an encyclopedia. It's time to change Wikipedia policy. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You're not quite getting it, HJ Mitchell. I'm a senior Wikipedia editor. 10,000s of edits. Wikipedia seems unable to regulate itself. And a boilerplate response to a detailed criticism? It's pretty much part of the problem. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So the easy solution is to quit complaining and fix it yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.249.232 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There may be concerns with the article, but where the lead summarises material in the body, (as it should), citations are not necessarily required if they are included in the body of the article. In this case it seems that the main points from the lead are referenced where they appear in the body, so it doesn't seem to be OR. Otherwise, I guess it comes down to taste and preferred writing style - I rather liked how it is written, so it isn't a problem for me, and it seemed that the FAC reviewers were happy, but I guess people can see these things differently. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This aspect, I understand and concur with, thank you, Bilby. See below for the focus of my issues. 98.210.208.107
(EC)You might want to read and then sit back and consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) and WP:LEDECITE before you criticise a lede section for OR or synthesis. The lede necessarily provides an overview of the article content, which one might call synthesis, but which is not WP:SYN. I've not checked the article because I'm unconvinced by the angry tone of your complaint, but as a general rule, I would expect claims made in the lede to be expanded and referenced in remainder of the article. If you can provide actual examples of faults in this or other respects then maybe we can do business. If you merely want to rant about something, we cannot. Note that you have, elsewhere, been pointed to Wikipedia:Featured article review should you think that eventuality necessary. There, too, you'd have to make a better referenced and less general complaint. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't agree more with the above statements. We allow unsourced leads as long as the info is sourced in the body; other editors may want to source their leads, which is fine as well, but it's editor preference to which way its done. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the best venue to continue the conversation, or in the Village Pump (probably there). My concern here is specific, and based on an experience I had some weeks ago challenging another Featured article. In essence, I was told this: "Other people besides you make the decision; Once the decision is made, it cannot be changed for three months."
I can, indeed, cite specific problems vis-a-vis the lede. I'm an editor who has worked for major companies such as Microsoft, and I'm very well able to support my position. I have edited Wikipedia for many years, and have 10,000s of edits. I have never been blocked or banned. However, I see no practical way through "channels" to correct this article, which is, as I stated, original research, synthesis, and how-to -- even in the opening paragraphs. This ability for a small group of a handful of people to promote their own work, then ignore criticism must be stopped, or Wikipedia will simply become a tool for social cliques. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The practical way forwards is to provide examples of your complaints on this page. That is the way to support your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Tagishsimon, it's appropriate to look at details, but I'm concerned that my larger -- and crucial -- points will not become lost, which are that this article should not have been promoted to Featured status, should not have appeared on the Wikipedia home page, and is protected against correction.
In that light, and for the purpose of demonstrating reasonable doubt, the referenced article that appears to support the claim in the lede that "Sacrifice was the first commercial video game to take advantage of video graphics cards that can process transform, clipping, and lighting instructions" does NOT say that, but instead uses WP:PEACOCK "Sacrifice is the only game out now that will really light a fire under a high-end 3D card."[1] 98.210.208.107 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You've got two different issues here that you're compounding and making it difficult.
The first issue is what you perceived as a problem with lack of sourcing in the lead. That's why you've been pointed to WP:LEAD to show that it is not necessary. Now, if you feel there are statements that are OR and you cannot see what supports them in the body of the article, bring them up here, and likely you'll be told what the source is or the like. But again, LEAD allows unsourced openings as long as it's summarizing the article (as this appears to be)
The second issue is challenging the FA aspect. There is a process for this (that's WP:FAR), and as best as I know, there's no time frame on that; certainly being a year-old FA, it's certainly open for a possible review. Do note that before you start a FAR you need to address specific points on this talk page and see if they can be resolved. If they can't or aren't, then FAR is an option. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Masem. I agree it's difficult to deal with two issues. The focus is to challenge the FA status. The comments on the lede were just to establish that there was reasonable doubt. The Featured article discussion was, as you say, a year ago[2], however the objectionable lede had the same problems at that point. So, there is a third question, which perhaps is the most relevant, which is why this article was not reviewed again, before being promoted as a Wikipedia ideal? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're getting stuck up on the point that WP:LEAD explains: the lead section does not need to be sourced - its an editor's discretion. Now, you seem to be claiming there are statements that are original research or the like because there are no sources. Don't just say "the lead", but put specific examples of statements that you think are original research in the lead that are otherwise not sourced in the body of the article. If they truly are unsourced, then that needs to be fixed; that's certainly a possibility. But I suspect that you'll find every statement in the lead is summarizing sourced statements in the body of the article, as WP's style allows.
If you don't like this style, then you can question that at WP:LEAD (as it applies to all articles not just FAs) to see if there's traction to change it. But from what you're saying and what I'm seeing in this article, you're basically not a fan of unsourced leads, despite that that is presently an acceptable way to have leads. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I wasn't being clear: the source cited later in the article appears to contradict the statement in the lede. (I do understand and do agree that ledes should not be burdened with footnoting.) 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, then that's a valid complaint to see and check. Can you state specifically what's contradictory between the lead and body? --MASEM (t) 05:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently foolishly engaged in a silly edit war and hot debate about the cast list of a 30 year old TV cop show. The debate text exceeded the article text many times over. I did not realize that passion and erudition ran so high also over the gaming merits of high-end 3D cards. J Wales is/was a keen gamer too I suppose. May I suggest the anon senior editor open an account to solve several of her/his frustrations. Featured status is a bit of a fetish. Be careful as WP itself can transmogrify into an online game too and not a pretty one .--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 05:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Tumadoireacht, you've certainly been down some of the roads that I have travelled! However, I do have an account. I chose to address this anonymously, rather than have people weigh in on long-standing social disputes. I'm not a malfeasant: in many years in Wiki, I've never been blocked, banned, or had any priviledges removed. You're bringing a smile to my lips about Featured status being a fetish. But. All the same? It's part of how the world judges us. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is my fault; I misread the source. I have read the sources again and made corrections (feel free to point out if the language of the change is awful and offer alternatives—I have oft acknowledged my language standards). I hope the mistake of "first game to exploit the new gen cards" is the only issue that sparked this section (and resolved by my corrective action). I do not believe that the article is riddled with errors (to the extent that the majority of the contents are fallacies), and that this is, hopefully, my single error in this text. If there are others, I am glad if you will raise them up for discussion and resolutions to improve the article.

The article had gone through a peer review (targeted for a general audience), an A-Class review, and a video game project peer review before its nomination at FAC. It would have been helpful to have received your input in those reviews and the FAC then; there would have been no need for this and the article would have been much improved if that had happened. WP:FAC is still on-going, and everyone would appreciate helpful comments and suggestions to improve those articles and the process. Jappalang (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a complaint about a featured article while it was on the Main Page last month, and no one ever responded. I feel like FAC is a hit and miss process with some heavy biases, especially in favor of video games and other topics that are very LIMITED in the amount of material that is available about them. But whenever the topic is nice and general and could be talked about in 10,000 sources, it gets quibbled to death. The result is that more obscure, more limited, less well written articles crowd out the fundamentals. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)