Talk:History of Western role-playing video games/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Torchiest (talk · contribs) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning my review. This may take a while, as the article is pretty hefty, and I intend to be thorough. Comments will come later today. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Generally very good, but you should take one more slow read-through and look for minor grammar and punctuation problems. Or have someone else look it over, since it may be easier for them to spot the little mistakes at this point. I'm guessing you're a bit glazed from all the work you've done. :)

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I suggest breaking the lead into multiple paragraphs. It's a bit wall of text-y right now. Also, there are a few WP:MOS issues. You need to go through and remove words that are too vague. For example, in the lead, you say, "Today role-playing games are once again popular..." "Today" won't always be today; change it to something like, "Role-playing games are once again popular in the early 2010s." You also need to define acronyms like CRPG, a term you use continuously without explaining at the beginning, e.g. role-playing game (RPG).
Done. SharkD Talk 16:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the Mainframe computers (late 1970s–early 1980s) section, you don't capitalize a lot of the game names. However, in the ones that have Wikipedia articles, they are capitalized in those articles. I believe they should almost all be capitalized, except for dnd, which isn't capitalized in its article. There may be some other exceptions, but take another look at those.
They are not capitalized since the PLATO platform they were developed for did not support capitalization in its file system. That's why dnd and pedit5 are not capitalized, and why the others shouldn't as well. SharkD Talk 16:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of Ultima and Wizardry (early–mid 1980s), you say, "For instance," which I believe is too casual in WP:TONE. You can just pull it, which will make the sentence stronger anyway. Look out for similar problems elsewhere. Further down in the second paragraph of that section, you have this: "According to Garriott, Ultima was now "more than a mere fantasy escape. It provided a world with a framework of deeper meaning?a level of detail [and] diversity of interaction that is rarely attempted."" Is that a typo, or is it what the source says? It should either be fixed or tagged with {{sic}} to avoid confusion.
Done. The typo exists in the source as well, so I didn't know what to do about it. SharkD Talk 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Diablo section: "(Diablo's development was influenced by Moria and Angband[12][43])," you should always move the references behind punctuation. "Not least of all contributing to Diablo's success was its support for online, collaborative play through its online service, Battle.net..." This is phrased a bit awkwardly. Can you rewrite it to be a little clearer?
I disagree with moving the refs. I don't think there's a better place to put them, and putting them outside the parentheses would be misleading. SharkD Talk 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor punctuation issue in the Diablo section. You're using the hyphen "-" in places where you should be using the mdash "—" to break up interjections. The spot I'm looking at now: With the sheer number of items, locations and monsters found in such games - especially those of the hack and slash variety - it can be difficult to design an encounter that is both unique and works regardless of how a character has been customized." That should read "With the sheer number of items, locations and monsters found in such games—especially those of the hack and slash variety—it can be difficult to design an encounter that is both unique and works regardless of how a character has been customized. Another spot: "BioWare--once considered the "savior" of the Western RPG following a lengthy drought--are..." I do see that you've got this mostly correct in the article though.
Done. SharkD Talk 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of that section, "An expansion pack to Diablo, titled Diablo: Hellfire, was released in 1997; followed by a sequel, Diablo II, in 2000. The sequel later received its own expansion, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, in 2001; and three of the four titles are commonly sold together in stores as part of the Diablo Battle Chest over a decade later." That sequence is a bit confusing. Can you specify which were sold together? A little farther down, "all made use of procedural generation to generate game levels." Mix up the language a little here.
Done. SharkD Talk 17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving into the Interplay section, the part about Fallout: "Black Isle soon followed up with a sequel, and a tactical RPG based on the franchise by third-party developer Micro Forté" Your link to Fallout Tactics is in the bolded text. Could you rewrite that to make it more obvious that the link is going to that specific game rather than to the concept of a tactical RPG?
Done. SharkD Talk 17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should move the Avellone quote up into the paragraph that focuses on Fallout. It's a bit late in the action where it is, after the summary of the Interplay games.
The problem is that the text gets squished when the browser window is small. SharkD Talk 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two thirds of the way down in the 21st century section: " Also beginning in 2006, Obsidian Entertainment was developing a role-playing game based on the Aliens film franchise, but it was later canceled along with an original title with the working name of Seven Dwarves." That's a bit awkwardly phrased.
I don't see the issue with this sentence. Two titles were cancelled: the Alien title and an original IP. Do you have any suggestions on how to rewrite it? SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little past that, you've got this: "The third game in particular was notable for its 'ton of quests, rewards exploration[sic] and approachable combat', but also for its 'system hogging, feeling unfinished[sic] and atrocious voice acting'." I see what you're doing here, but why no try rewriting your framing comments to build around the original text, instead of noting that the verbs and such don't match?
Done. SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bethesda section: "A total of two expansion packs" is wordy; just say two. Just a little farther down, "total of five", same thing.
Done. SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of the Recent video game consoles and multi-platform titles section: " there is still a stigma of nerdiness associated with the term "role-playing game" that developers and publishers prefer to avoid." Put "nerdiness" in quotes, assuming you're quoting the source.
It's not a direct quote. It's merely implied, so no quotes. SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the See also list, you should remove everything except the "Cultural differences" link, as all the others already appear earlier in the article.
Done. Actually, I removed the whole section. SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can split the list of specific references you've got at the top of your list, like Barton, Matt (2007-02-23). "The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 1: The Early Years (1980–1983)". in a separate section either above or below the References section, and call it Bibliography.
Done. SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this is a few spots, and it's incorrect grammar. You should not be using the word "and" immediately after a semicolon. In some cases, changing it to a comma will fix the problem, but in other cases, you could remove the "and". Just remember that a semicolon should be dividing two pieces of text that can each be read as a complete sentence individually.
I have trouble with punctuation, so I'd appreciate if someone else were to fix these. I do know that semicolons can also be used to separate lists of lists and sentences such as "She saw three men: Jamie, who came from New Zealand; John, the milkman's son; and George, a gaunt kind of man.". SharkD Talk 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The two RPGVault references (currently #119 and #120) timed out. "The History of Console RPGs" (#19), "Diablo III Launching May 15" (#52), "Former Obsidian artist Ian Ameling's resume" (#86), "[Games Convention] Further Details About RPB" (#95), and "Mass Effect is a Game Worth Waiting For From BioWare" (#110) are dead.
I was able to find archived versions of some of these. But the rest remain dead. SharkD Talk 18:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
In the section on Ultima you say, "the landmark multiplayer online series, Ultima Online (1997)" is unsourced. The fact that it was a spin-off is uncontroversial, but calling it "landmark" definitely needs a reference.
Done. SharkD Talk 19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next paragraph, you say, "the Wizardry series would feature a 3D, first-person view, an intuitive interface, party-based combat, and pre-constructed levels that encouraged players to create their own maps." That needs a source of some kind, especially the last part.
Done. SharkD Talk 19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Golden Age (late 1980s–early 1990s) section, you say, "The Gold Box series is probably what SSI are best known for; and is considered one of the defining series of the "Golden Age" of CRPGs." That strong of a claim definitely needs a citation. I'd also avoid saying "probably", which won't be necessary if and when you find a source making a clear statement on the subject.
Done. SharkD Talk 19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Near the end of that section, third from last paragraph: "Sierra Entertainment, known for its point-and-click adventure games, would produce the Quest for Glory series beginning in 1992, combining CRPG and adventure game mechanics together into a highly unique mix." I'm thinking "highly unique" needs a cite. Right after that, you use some WP:WEASEL words: "Featuring involved stories, complex puzzles, as well as (lamentably, to some) arcade-like combat, the series would continue for a total of five titles, the most recent of which was released in 1998." It's not in the source at the end of that sentence, so you'll need to be more precise about exactly who thought the arcade-like combat was a negative, and cite it.
Done. SharkD Talk 20:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
At one point, you say, "Of particular note is 1987's NetHack, an update of Rogue that arguably surpassed the original in popularity, complexity and sense of humor—as well as through its continuous extensions and updates over nearly two decades." and cite Barton 2007a, p. 2, but then note "Barton cites Hack instead of NetHack, however; and fails to mention its 'sense of humor'." If the source doesn't match the name, and doesn't describe it as humorous, that looks like original research. Can you explain what your thinking is on writing things that way?
Fixed. The statement was original to the article before I started working on it, and I still completely agree with it. SharkD Talk 21:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Decline section, there is this line: "Finally, games became more cinematic as opposed to novelistic, as in Knights of the Old Republic, with a focus on a single player-made character progressing through the game and acting as the player's sole avatar." Reading the source, I don't think this is an accurate summary of its contents. The main problem is the fact that KOTOR came out in 2003, eight years after this decline. The games mentioned in the previous sentence are all from the mid-to-late 1990s, which makes sense as adaptations to the changing technical environment. KOTOR, in the source, reads like more of an example of the enduring legacy of that change, not one of the games that moved the genre in that direction. I'd say you should just remove it from the sentence, which is otherwise okay. Right after that, I'd suggest putting "silliness" and "weirdness" in quotes, to make it clear you're pulling the idea from the source. Otherwise, it reads like original research.
Done. The source does however cite KOTOR as an example. SharkD Talk 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about Baldur's Gate, you say: "At the time—and despite being real-time instead of turn-based—the games created the most accurate and in-depth D&D simulation to date, and featured support for up to six-players in co-op mode.[62]" The quote in that citation doesn't seem to support the assertion "despite being real-time". In fact, Baldur's Gate actually has turn-based combat that simulates real-time, I believe, since everyone in combat gets to take their limited actions during a "round" before the next round begins. There's an option to pause at the beginning of each round of combat. That might be a technicality and besides the point, but the statement that it was accurate despite being real-time doesn't look backed up by the source.
Fixed. However, the comment was meant to differentiate Baldurs Gate from SSI's Gold Box series and Troika's The Temple of Elemental Evil, both of which were turn-based. The difference is not a minor one, and arguably could be interpreted as meaning the Gold Box games were in fact MORE accurate. SharkD Talk 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The middle paragraph of the Early 21st century (2000s–present) section: "...followed by the highly anticipated The Temple of Elemental Evil (2003)" There's no source backing up that claim. A little further in that same paragraph: "Although these games developed an enthusiastic fanbase, none of them were financially successful or sold particularly well. ToEE in particular was heavily criticized for shipping with numerous bugs, and caused an outcry when Atari dropped early support for the game. 2005 saw Troika Games in financial trouble, and most of the developers left for other studios, rendering the group dead.[82][83]" Do sources 82 and 83 back up all the statements made in here? Just want to clarify, since they're only at the end of the paragraph.
Fixed. SharkD Talk 23:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Independent games and Eastern Europe section, you've got a huge list of games, broken down by genre and hybrid genres, but without any sources. Can you find a way to source this a little better? It seems to be getting a little too precise with the terminology to be unsourced. Alternatively, I would probably be okay with removing the sub-genre terms and just mentioning the different regions and countries the games are from, since that's not a controversial statement.
Done. I added some refs. Hopefully they will help. SharkD Talk 00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Covers all the time periods quite well and in depth.

B. Focused:
Sticks with the subject.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Not even sure this could be a problem in this article.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable as can be, only edits are continuing improvements.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
All the images check out, but similarly to what I said above, the last Oblivion image needs to be rephrased to avoid time-dependent phrases like "the past decade".
Done. SharkD Talk 00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Despite my tons and tons of comments, corrections, and complaints above, this is overall a fantastic article, and I commend you for your efforts. I'm pretty sure you should be able to deal with most of my nitpicking without too much trouble, and this should be able to be promoted in the near future. Putting the article on hold until you have a chance to address the issues I've listed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! Sorry I didn't get to it earlier, but I was gone visiting family for the past week or so. I'll do so now. SharkD Talk 02:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on all your fixes. I'm fine with the few minor issues you disagreed about, as they're not that crucial. I did some copy editing to clean up a few minor problems, and pulled two of the dead references, as they seemed unnecessary. The Diablo III release link actually works okay; the link checker gave a false alarm, I guess. Other than that, I think it's good to go! Awesome job. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance!!! SharkD Talk 04:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]