Wikipedia:Peer review/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1

Sacrifice (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sacrifice (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some additional requests and comments to help Sacrifice be more accessible to gamers and non-gamers alike (and to attain GA- or FA-class). Hopefully, when non-gamers read the article, they would know how the game is played, what it looks like, and what reviewers and the general gaming public found fun and notable about the game.

Thanks, Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Per your request I am looking at the article's text. Here are some observations on the first half; some are mere suggestions for improvement, others may be worth a few moment's thought.

• Lead
  • First paragraph: "also" not required in final sentence
  • Unclear: "Players customize their offense from spells and creatures..." Is "offense" used in the sense of "attack"? If so, "offensive" might be clearer, and perhaps should be pluralized: "Players customize their offensives from spells and creatures..."
  • "By adjusting the required level of detail, Sacrifice could be run..." Should be "can be run"?
  • Second part of same sentence reads "...while maintaining the highest possible quality of graphics." This is a case where the passive voice might correctly be used, as it isn't clear in the present construction who is maintaining the quality of graphics. I would suggest: "...whil the highest possible quality of graphics."
  • "...no sequels of it were planned." Perhaps "are planned" or "are currently planned"?
• Gameplay
  • "affect large areas..." – areas of what?
  • "the number of souls on a map is limited" – a map of what?
  • Repetition: "Players may start with a few souls and increase their pool of souls by locating unclaimed souls, or by killing unfriendly creatures and converting their souls." You could lose a couple by rewording: "Players may start with a few souls and increase their resource by locating unclaimed souls, or by converting those of unfriendly creatures that they have killed."
  • "The other three gods—James, Stratos, and Pyro—govern the elements..." It may clarify if you say "natural elements"
  • The last paragraph of this section is a little confusing for non-gamers to understand. "Sacrifice's gameplay does not focus on managing resources and bases..."; "The player is not required as much to renew his resources or to manage their gathering." As I have read it, the player has to have these resources, and has to manage them, to be effective in overcoming enemy forces. Perhaps it is a question of emphasis, but the position needs to be made a bit clearer.
• Single player campaign
  • First para, a couple of minor points:
    • "Suffering a cataclysm long ago, the world..." Should be "this" world, to clarify what world you are talking about
    • "is split into five realms." To maintain tense consistency this should read "was split" Better still, maintain the present tense throughout - a god rules, rivalries are further stirred, Eldred offers his service to the gods.
  • "...the player's choices would lead..." I'm not sure what "would" is doing here
  • "bestows" → "bestow"
  • "...seek his destiny on other worlds." I think "in" reads better than "on"
• Multiplayer: The language here is a mite technical for the likes of me (computer semi-illiterates). Possibly nothing can be done?

I will deal with the rest later. At the moment I have some main page problems to sort out (bloody vandals). Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented the corrections; as for the over-technicality of the multiplayer sub-section, I will see if I can make it less technical... Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at making the multiplayer sub-section a bit plainer... please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment

• Development
  • "...to this game" not necessary at sentence end
  • "The company had a bad experience..." This is a "had had" case
  • I'm missing something. Can you clarify the actual marketing mistake that Shiny made with regard to Messiah?
• Graphics
  • Ambiguity: "and the simplicity of the division and its data management algorithms..." Does "simplicity" describe both the division and its data management algorithms, or just the division? Incidentally, I could not fathom at all what the sentence including this phrase meant, however hard I looked at it.
• Release
  • "...possible areas of improvements" - should be "improvement"
  • "On December 14, the game was released." For clarity, this should be "On December 14, the Mackintosh version of the game was released."
• Reception
  • Neither of the first two paragraphs ssem to relate to the reception of Sacrifice. Are they in the right place here?
  • "The industry examined if Shiny would redress the failure of Messiah and deliver a better product." Awkward phrasing - "examined if" is probably wrong. Perhaps: "The industry wished to see whether Shiny would redress the failure of Messiah and deliver a better product."
  • Tense consistenct needed. At present we have Michael Eilers remarked, Journalist Tom Chick sums up, John Bye found etc
• Legacy: No detailed points, but just a thought: do video games really have "legacies"?

I hope these points are helpful. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I adopted the suggestions and tried to clarify the "mistake" (dropping the "marketing"). As for the first two paragraphs of the Reception, I was attempting to establish a background context for those who are not familiar with video games, stating that the video games market was healthy at the time, and real-time strategy games, though not the best seller on the whole, was a popular item for the PC gamers. Shiny's reputation also had most people anticipating for their next product, especially after Messiah's release. Is it a bit too divorced from the subject? Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of Reception to more tightly focused on real-time strategy games (showing how it was popular and by extension, how people were keen when Shiny started working on a real-time strategy game). Jappalang (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As for "Legacy", there are several VG articles that have Legacy (sub-)sections. Not sure if the term really does qualify (legacies span long periods?), though... but... Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on images and media and would suggest removing the picture and voices of the gods, as unlikely to pass NFCC#8. No comment on anything else. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, replaced with Curry's and Garrett's photos. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)