Talk:Secrets of Rætikon

Title

For those interested in special character use in the title, see WP:TSC. The redirect's set up to this official name, so this appears to be the most sensible route. czar ♔ 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Secrets of Rætikon}} czar ♔ 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Secrets of Rætikon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lucia Black (talk · contribs) I'll be taking a look at this article. One of my first reviews. If you feel you need a second opinion on anything, that will be fine.05:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well written: Gameplay section needs a lot of work...its not really written to help explain the gameplay. Heavily disorganized. I believe the entire thing needs to be revised completely, so before i go into further detail. I'll recommend a layout that is most common in games to help one organize it.

I recommend that the first thing you mention in the Gameplay section is what type of game it is (you already seem to covered that). Next is mention what the game features, such as in this instance environments and biomes, and other things. The next is what the player is in control of, and what features the player can use. Next is directly mentioning the objective of the game and any details of what it is needed in order to achieve it. Mention any other aspects of the game such as obstacles that the game features.

Now that is cleared up, there are other issues as well. The term Raetikon environments is an odd choice of words. I would recommend the world (or land) of Raetikon instead. but then again, it also needs to be established that this land/world is called Raetikon. So that needs to be clarified as well.

The sudden word choice of biomes, and the mentions of alters, and glowing relics was a bit too out of nowhere. It wasn't established at all before hand. Also i have no idea what a "glowing relic" is, or rather the way it is in quotations confuses me. Are they objects known as "Glowing Relic" or is it literally a glowing relic? These things need to be clarified.

I don't know why there's a mention of the game purposely being obtuse in its objective. Not only is it taken from a review (an opinion, not a fact) but the review doesn't use such word usage, and i find that word usage to be vague. That sentence can probably be removed or expanded on in the review section. There's also the inconsistency of referring it to a "winged creature" and "bird".

As for the Development section, its not poorly written, but similarly to the Gameplay section, it needs to be organized better. For one, it doesn't have much of a transition. The information relating to "concept and creation" such as what Raetikon is based off and what the visuals were inspired by are mentioned after the more technical production info that was influenced by it.

In the review section i don't know why it needs to be pointed out that the reviewers estimated that the game was 3 hours long. That doesn't seem necessary at all. I'm also seeing that the reviews are mixed up. I'd suggest you don't split up reviews, throughout the paragraph, especially if there opinion doesn't vary too much.

Verifiable I see some original research as there are specific phrasing that is not backed up by sources, or at least the sources used. Gameplay section says that the game is a story driven open world sandbox. Not sure how true that is but the sources aren't confirming it. there's nothing confirming that what the player controls is a "player character" either. That's a very specific term when referring to a specific avatar that the player creates and personalizes.

Coverage Seems to be covered well, all except for the gameplay section that could be expanded. I saw a quick glimpse of the official page and it shows some accolades not mention in the article. So those can definitely be mentioned. I know Minecon might not be a worthy feature, but the rest i'm unsure of. If they are noteworthy accolades, then they should be in the article.

Neutral Seems to be neutral. In the lead i would probably avoid the word "condemn"

Stable Seems to be stable.

Images Although the images are all under fair-use, the ones in the gameplay don't give a large idea of what the game is about. The first seems to be fine, but the other two are excessive. Some more description of the images would be best too.

I'll be putting the GAN on hold for now until all the issues are fixed. Lucia Black (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lucia Black, thanks for the review. I think I've addressed everything, if you want to take a look. Some replies: almost all reviewers noted that the game was not clear in its objectives and that it was up to the player to figure out what to do. I felt that saying the objectives were obtuse covered that angle, but I removed it for now. The gameplay has been completely reworded to not use any of the vagueness of the game or its reviewers. I thought it was fine the way it was, as I think the game's obtuseness is one of its most distinctive qualities, but I also don't have the time to discuss it right now. The time estimates was something multiple reviewers mentioned, so I felt it was worth mentioning too, per due weight. The reviews are organized by similar criticism rather than by source. Not sure what you mean about story-based sandbox not being sourced, because it remains verifiable in its cited source. Player-character is used in non-RPGs to refer to the character both emblematic of and controlled by the player. If you have a better term for this, let me know, but it hasn't been an issue with my dozens of other GAs. The "awards" were not covered in secondary sources as far as I've searched, so I didn't include them. czar ♔ 20:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The term is so specific, and it really hasn't been confirmed by primary sources that the game is indeed "purposely" "obtuse". If multiple sources said that is exactly what that game (using the exact wording to describe the game), than i can see why it can be used, but the problem is that the article confirms it as a fact, not as an opinion. The need to specify "player character" throughout the gameplay section just gives makes it disjointed as whats already established is the bird, yet not referring to the bird from then on seems odd. It seems odd that it refers back to a bird when explaining the controls (which should be moved towards the beginning). its really not needed to mention "player character" so heavily. There are times when it is necessary, but in this particular case, i don't see much warrant for it. All you have to do is say "the player controls a bird".

There is still some original research. The sources don't explicitly state the game is "story-driven" or that it is an open-world "sandbox".

The Development and Reception haven't been fixed yet. The reception especially needs work as it just switches between review several times in the first paragraph. Dephinitely not organized. The excessive amount of images has also not been addressed. Lucia Black (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black, organizing the paragraphs by issue instead of by reviewer is a perfectly acceptable style - in fact, I prefer it because the other way seems arbitrary in which reviewers go in which paragraph. Regarding the images, there's no limit as long as they're not getting irrelevant or using up excessive bandwidth, which is far from the case here. I do agree about the "bird" issue, though, and I suspect it's because czar leans strongly toward real-world perspectives in his video game articles, e.g. he suggested I remove the protagonists' names from the intro of the Freedom Planet article as a minor fictitious detail. This is grounded in good faith, I'm sure, but it can be a little distracting in wording-related situations like this. Haven't looked at the other issues. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It can be organized better regardless. Its not being done by subject, its just trying to show varying opinions in general. There's really 4 or 5 reviews to take consideration. Not every little thing need to be mentioned just so it can vary. I understand if each paragraph focuses on a different aspect on the game but thats simply not whats happening.

As for images, i will stand firmly that they are excessive and not necessarily needed. one image is good, two is pushing it, but three is definitely excessive. Lucia Black (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I made the image change, but I really think these suggestions are outside the GAN scope at this point, such as reorganizing the Reception section to your personal preference. I rephrased that one instance of "bird" that I think you're referencing. If you're curious, I try to follow WP:VG/STYLE, which says that the gameplay section should be written with an out-of-universe perspective, that there is a player controlling a bird and it isn't just the bird doing things on its own. The "player-character" is a better reference point than discussing what "the player" or "the character" do. In the source for "single-player, story-driven, open world sandbox":

The game is a story-based sandbox in an open world.

so it's not original research. I don't see what you want changed in the Development section. Please let me know if there's anything else. czar ♔ 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I might have something to comment, but I would rather watch. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't quote the story/sandbox line because it's not an original phrase but a series of common descriptors for the game (used by several sources) czar ♔ 23:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. "Sandbox" is supported by a statement from Broken Rules, the developer, which may not be considered a reliable source; therefore, original research. Could a different source be provided? Otherwise, I think that the word could be dropped.

Regarding the Development section, Czar should try to understand what Lucia Black said in the paragraph above, make some edits, and see whether they improve the section. It would be easier for Lucia Black to edit the article directly rather than explain, but she is working as a reviewer now.

Okay, now watching... 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not how reliable sources or original research works and I'm not sure what you're getting at. Polygon is a RS and they decided to publish that description. The publisher is what gives the source credibility, not their informant. (They could source the Boogeyman and Polygon would still be a RS.) The description is used in several sources—here's one, if necessary. This level of minutiae is well beyond the scope of the GA criteria. And as for Development, again, if you understand what needs to be done, please let me know. I see nothing wrong with that paragraph's organization. czar ♔ 02:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Describing that the player controls a bird is still stating things in "out-of-universe". What we don't need to do is be over-technical about it, because common sense dictates it has to be understandable. And again, theres really no need for it. I find it acceptable to identify that the player character is the bird in the beggining, however from then on it should be referred to as a bird for better understanding of the gameplay mechanics. I don't see why it has to force the term "player character" inconsistently.

The problem with the reception section is that its not well organized (i can't even say that it is even trying to be organized), therefore fails the first criteria: Well written. The Reception section is not "clear" nor "concise". It actually looks like the reception section is just alternating between the same reviewers for the sake of inflation and making the reception section seem bigger. It can be organized better, by subject, or by reviewer, that's the most common (and most sensible) forms of organization. Lucia Black (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is organization there; it's just not the most transparent because there are so few paragraph boundaries and no topic sentences. The first is mostly about the game's structure, with some about specific game mechanics at the end, while the second is about the art style, then glitches, then stuff about the game in general. It's not as good as I remember from my very brief skim of the page; I wouldn't mind seeing it reorganized - it would certainly have to be for FA. Tezero (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm standing "firmly" on this one Tezero. It is not "organized" properly. The primary notes of the reviewers in the first paragraph are from 2 reviewers. One of them is barely making mention of the length of the game. The second paragraphs just alternates between the negative comments, but that does not in any way prove its done in an organized format. it just looks like inflation as it alternates from negative comments between 3 reviews. Its fine if the second paragraph is focused on the negative aspects, but its organized intending inflation. "prell said something negative about this" "Denton said something negative about that" "Thew something negative" "Denton once again mentions something negative". The final paragraph isn't about artstyle, its just a mash up of additional thoughts that were added in. The technical aspects mentioned in the second paragraph are also part of the third too. So that's definitely "topical" structure. Lucia Black (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

LB, I don't understand how you want it reorganized. As Tez mentioned, it goes through the story and gameplay, and the art and technical design. Do you want the art separated into its own paragraph? Because it's only two sentences and I don't know how that'll look. Do you want the technical design criticism reframed as a straight-up criticism section? Because no reviewers actually praised its technical design. Do you want topic sentences? If you go to the three small reviews, you're not going to find more comments on any of these topics to build a fuller reception section. I trimmed it down to the main points of their reviews and presented them in a logical order—everything else is going to be a compromise of bloat in one way or another. If you are mandating a topical organization, I need more information on what exactly you want. In all my GAs, this is the only time someone has demanded their preferred format of a Reception section, especially from someone new to the process. czar ♔ 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Its funny that you never been asked to rework the reception section as it has been consistently asked of me in almost every GAN that i've been involved with.

Keep in mine, its not about preference, its about standards. I'm not demanding a specific format, just that the reception section is organized by a format in general. Whatever format you choose it better be organized "appropriately". The revisions are better, but it doesn't appear that the improvements you made affect the entire section. For example, the second paragraph is definitely more organized better but not quite there in the third. It has some synthesis issues with the sentence: Reviewers appreciated the moments where the game's elements coalesced,<ref name="Eurogamer review"/><ref name="Joystiq review"/> but Hardcore Gamer's Thew found the game "shallow", uninteresting, and "a disappointment ... on almost every level".<ref name="HG review"/>. This sentence not only summarizes two reviews in an odd place of the reception paragraph, but it seems to suggest that Hardcore Gamer's comment is directly in contrast with Eurogamer's and Joystiq, which both reviewers have mentioned similar comments early on, and it doesn't really seem like Hardcore gamer's review is even related. I made modifications, but I suggest clarifying this sentence (or find something else instead) to make it seem the reviews are more directly related to what topic you're portraying. So just that one sentence needs fixing/clarifying/repurposed, and it'll pass GA. Lucia Black (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lucia Black, ✓ czar ♔ 21:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems imminent that the nomination is going to pass, I would like to remember one important point that is not properly emphasized in the criteria:

A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria.

Many readers do not care about focus on the topic or the manual of style, but they expect the article to be satisfactory. The reviewer's job is to assess in good faith if this condition is met. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The article now has passed and is "satisfactory" level. Keep in mind, GA is still a standard. And it has been fixed for better cohesion. The biggest issue was the problem with "Well-written" criteria, as it was anything but concise and clear. Modifications had to be made for better transition between topics in order to explain what the reviewers were focusing on, or what the article is trying to portray. But it has already passed. Lucia Black (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Being one of the judges selected randomly, I would like to ask Figureskatingfan: if Lucia Black made this review in the GA Cup, would the corresponding points have been awarded? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

84.127.80.114, this review would be acceptable for the GA Cup, and would be worth 11 points: 10 base points, no extra points for nomination date, since it spent less than 30 days in the queue; 0 points for article length (almost 6kb); at a little over 16kb, 1 extra point for review comprehensiveness. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)