Article's been languishing awhile, so I'll take it on. Won't have time for a day or two, though. Opening comment: why does an American game need a {{nihongo}} title? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the Japanese title is used in the official cover art (all versions) and title screen and a couple critics have mentioned it as part of larger points about the game's East Asian influences. Thanks for reviewing, though! Tezero (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the delay; off-wiki stuff has been keeping me busy lately. I'll try to get to this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starting:
- "a 2D platform/action video game" — From what I know, 2D must be introduced via "two-dimensional (2D)" before it may be used alone. Also, "platform/action" is vague to non-gamers, on top of being an informal construction.
- Done the 2D part. What would you suggest for the genre? Neither action nor platforming really dominates or was purported to by the sources, so I can't really remove one; would you prefer a hyphen or en-dash as a separator? Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be better simply to call it a "platform game", for the sake of clarity. It would make sense, too—most games considered action-platformers are in the vein of Gunstar Heroes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "an ad hoc studio headed by Stephen DiDuro." — I don't know what an "ad hoc studio" is, and no wikilink to the concept is provided. Should be rephrased in clearer terms.
- "Ad hoc" is used without explanation in the lead of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, an FA. I really don't know much more, though, about the context; none of the sources even mention individual members of GalaxyTrail other than DiDuro. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That FA is over six years old, and the phrase "ad hoc" did not appear in the version that passed FAC. The sentence needs to be changed in some way—preferably by cutting "ad hoc" and leaving the details for the article body. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It
features a cast of primarily follows three anthropomorphic animals; the three playable characters are—the dragon Lilac, the wildcat Carol, and the basset hound Milla. Along with their duck-like friend Torque,—as they embark on a quest attempt to defeat the evil Lord Brevon, who plans to wants to drain energy from the planet to rebuild his starship and conquer the galaxy."
- Partially done. I want to keep it as two separate sentences since your suggestion is a bit of a run-on, and Torque is a major character so I don't think it'd be right to leave him out. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the emdashed section makes it a run-on, but so be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not incomprehensible, just a lot of clauses in a row that I'm surprised you'd consider FA-quality. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The gameplay is fast-paced and involves unique attacks for all three characters." — I get no sense of the game from this sentence. It needs to be replaced with something more meaningful.
- It doesn't really offer anything either way, so I've removed it. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem now is that the gameplay is not described at all, which doesn't work. Something needs to be there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a brief, uncontroversial description of the gameplay that also mentions "action" without placing it in the main genre field. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "starring Lilac in the form of a hedgehog" — This is hard to follow. If it means that the protagonist was originally a hedgehog named Lilac, then the sentence should be rephrased to make that more obvious.
- Done. It was the same Lilac as made it into the final game, but as a hedgehog. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "disillusioned with this task" — What made him become disillusioned? Alternatively, if this is just a roundabout way of saying that he lost interest, then it should be rewritten along those lines.
- It turns out I got the chronology of development a bit mixed up in the intro: Lilac becoming a dragon didn't happen until after Ziyo Ling had been taken on. I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "seeking to create something more original" — This clause doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. Also, what does "more original" mean here?
- "She designed
the new characters and DiDuro reworked the game based on fans gave fan suggestions for more changes, thereby allowing the game to which transformed the game into its own intellectual property."
- "East Asia-influenced in its art style; the title is written in katakana" — The art of East Asia is, by Wikipedia's own assessment, insanely diverse. Needs clarification. Also, the semicolon is not correct and should be replaced with a simple "and".
- Reworded. I chose to link both China and Japan, but I can change that if you'd like. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Done per the body. I was under the impression that the body text would be too specific for the lead, but if "Chinese art" really reveals that little, I'm fine with this. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game was released for Microsoft Windows first as a
Microsoft Windows demo in August 2012, and then—after a few delays—as a full game for Windows via Steam on July 21, 2014."
- "
Both before and after the game's full release, critics have universally Freedom Planet has been widely compared it to the Sega Genesis Sonic games., Critics praised giving positive comments to its gameplay, aesthetics, and modulation balance of Sonic elements with original content, but were though they were more mixed on its pacing and length."
That's it for now. The article's a bit rough in the prose department—it could have used an outside copyedit before being sent to FAC. I'll plug away at this review however long it takes, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the GOCE certainly does keep itself busy, and I was getting impatient. I'll fix these when I'm at my real computer. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded above. I'll be back to continue the review ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more; I only have a short time to squeeze this in:
- "Freedom Planet is a 2D platform/action game." — Same problem as before.
- "The player controls any of the three playable characters—Lilac, Carol, or Milla—while running and jumping through levels and destroying robotic enemies." — This suggests that the player is running and jumping in real life. I can't think of a way to fix it without rewriting the sentence from scratch, but perhaps you have an idea.
- "involve environmental features" — Excessively abstract. Perhaps, "contain obstacles".
- "followed by cutscenes that advance the story" — Placement suggests that the player fights the cutscenes. Maybe, "after which the story is advanced by cutscenes".
- "As a result of wide-ranging similarities in the" —> "Because of its".
- The first screenshot's caption is a tedious, hard-to-follow list of terms. Strip it down to something that the average reader would find interesting.
- Yeah, admittedly I only wrote that up in the first place before the image was freely licensed. FURs are tedious in general. Clipped. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "
One significant difference from Unlike in Sonic, is that the player character has a standard health hit point meter instead of Sonic 's a ring-based health system."
I'll be back later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, cool. I've been busy lately and will continue to be for a few more days with finals and projects, but I'll edit when I can. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been distracted, too. I'll sit down and force myself to burn through the rest of the review soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- JimmyBlackwing, do you think you'll have time soon? Tezero (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry for the delays; definitely not my best review. Here we go:
- "red, crystalline leaves that are scattered" —> "leaves scattered". Less fancy; easier to read.
-
- "occasionally dropped by enemies to regain health" — Suggests that the enemies drop them to regain health.
- Moved clause to the beginning of the sentence. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the player's health; when the player with no remaining health is attacked, they lose a life" — The player does not lose health or his/her life.
- Weird; I don't remember writing that. Must've been someone else popping in. Anyway, done. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a reference to "the player's health" in that sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "with little consequence" — Not encyclopedic language.
-
- "occasionally" — Used twice. Both should be removed, since they don't add anything but length.
- "
The basic attack can be used repeatedly with no penalty, but the more powerful Special attacks, while more powerful, depletes an energy gauge shown on the game's heads-up display and cannot be performed again before the gauge has sufficiently recharged."
- Done, but with "until" instead of "before" as it seems to flow better. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The basic attacks are similar" — Similar to what?
- To one another. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "and Milla's involves launching a gelatinous energy cube to deal damage" — Surely there's a simpler way to describe the attack.
- "and she periodically finds motorcycles throughout her levels that allow her to scale walls smoothly" — I really don't follow.
- Really? Seems very straightforward to me, but rephrased. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A sidenote: all instances of "also" can be removed from the article without loss.
- "twirling, tornado-like double jump" —> "double jump".
- I don't think that'd really capture it, because it's not just a regular double-jump. I can't really think of anything to compare it to, except maybe a more mild version of Peach in Super Smash Bros.; have a look for yourself. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with double jumps that involve twirling animations—Super Mario Galaxy, for example. A double jump is still a double jump, though, and so the detail is unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "by vigorously flapping her ears like wings" — This is one of many informal, review-style passages in the article. An unfortunate step down prose-wise from Sonic: ATS and the finished THUG.
- You know, for future reference, comments like this aren't very helpful. I've already admitted that I didn't wait around to get this copyedited, so all you're really saying here is that you disapprove of a current FAC not being on par prose-wise with two FAs, one of which you extensively reviewed. And on top of that, you've given no indication as to why this is informal or what "review-style" even means. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To put the point bluntly: it reads like something from a fan blog or a video game review, rather than from an encyclopedia. It's needlessly detailed (the whole thing can be removed without loss to the article's main thrust) and it engages in literary language ("vigorously", for one) that Wikipedia avoids. Many similar examples can be drawn from the article—particularly the Plot section. Such phrasing would be more-or-less fine in another format, but encyclopedia prose is spare and fairly dry, and that's the standard to which we must adhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed "vigorously" and a few more. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not select a character from the beginning, but instead chooses either Lilac or Carol when they temporarily split up" — I'm lost as to what this could mean.
- "The game features numerous achievements such as defeating an end-of-level boss with a certain move, clearing all of a certain character's stages, or collecting all of ten cards dispersed throughout each level." —> "The player earns achievements by accomplishing certain goals, such as completing the game." (Assuming there's an achievement for finishing the game. If not, replace that with the next most basic example.)
- I've stricken the cards one, since the cards aren't used for anything in the game besides their associated achievements, and I've reworded as you said. I do want to keep the end-of-level boss one, though, as including only the game-clearing achievement seems kind of generic and obvious. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot section is in pretty dire shape. For starters, it needs to be reduced by 40-50%—there simply is no need for four large paragraphs. Also watch for overloaded, unclear, redundant-word-filled passages like the following: "Lilac and Carol rush to the Kingdom Stone's shrine to protect it, briefly being interrupted by Shang Tu's officers, General Gong and the priestess Neera Li, who refuse to believe their claims of a theft plot. However, they arrive just in time to watch the Stone be stolen by Spade, Dail's half-brother who is stealing the stone for Zao in order to discover the truth of his father's murder." Finally, scrub the section of all informal language, as seen in phrasing like "untold amounts of energy" and "the intent of meeting a dragon".
- Just a note: I think the official standard for video game plot articles is the range of 700-1,000 words, and this is around 800. It's likely that some details can be removed, but it's not like it's violating some policy here or getting into undue weight. I've rephrased the first of the specific examples here and simply removed the second, but I'm confused as to what you want me to do with this passage. I could reword it to make it a little clearer, but that would also make it longer. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The passage, along with the entire section, needs to be condensed and rewritten. It's tedious, overdetailed description, loaded end to end with names. I can barely follow it. Remember the Sleeping Dogs Plot section debacle at FAC? This section has exactly the same problems. Also, WPVG's length guidelines are irrelevant when the issue relates to criteria 1a and 4. You could write a 900-word plot summary for The Legend of Zelda (video game) and meet WPVG's guideline, but the section would fail criterion 4 by "going into unnecessary detail". That's the issue here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read your mind, but I've trimmed some details and instances of writing that sounded a little like the back of a book cover (some of the last remnants of the original authors of this section, which was about twice its current length), and I'll try to be back for more soon. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "brainchild" — Informal word.
- "DiDuro is also known online as 'Strife'" — Unnecessary.
- "ad hoc development team" — Same problem as when this phrase was used in the lead.
- Fixed. Ideally I'd simply state that he conceived the game and introduce him forming the team later, but it's not really clear exactly when other people started joining or when it became an actual team. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've run out of time again, but these should keep you busy for awhile. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, JimmyBlackwing, I've been caught up in some real-life affairs that... to be honest, aren't going away anytime soon. But I'll have time to address some of this, if not all, today. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing, how do you feel about the Plot section now? For the record, it's down to 615 words. I found a few more instances of non-encyclopedic wording and unnecessary details today and yesterday and scrapped them. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A big improvement. I've done a bit of follow-up copyediting. If I mangled the story in the process, feel free to adjust my work. I'm going to be busy until the end of the year, but I'll dedicate whatever time I can to finishing this review. Sorry again for the slowness—far from professional. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|