- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2017 [1].
- Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I have tried to edit and model this off of God of War III, which is an FA, though of course there are differences. Albeit with the new God of War announced this past summer, this is the only article of a God of War video game that has not been promoted to FA. It has been over a year since I last nominated this article for FAC. I feel comfortable in nominating this article and feel that any issues that reviewers may bring up can be easily resolved. I am quick to respond and make corrections. Thanks for reviewing. JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work in the article. However, there are some things that I'd like to point out.
- The third paragraph from the lead is too detailed. How about:
"God of War: Ascension received generally favorable reception from critics, who praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series. Some reviewers said the story was not as compelling as previous installments. The game's multiplayer element received a mixed response. Although reviewers said the gameplay translated well into the multiplayer element, they criticized the balance and depth of combat.
- The first sentence of plot "Gameplay begins with Kratos, who is imprisoned, chained, and tormented by the Furies for breaking his blood oath to Ares. Megaera" Explain who Magaera is. It could be easily written as The Fury Magaera.
- In development whenever there is a quote reference it instantly.
- Why is "Rise of the Warrior" in past tense? Did the novel completely disappear? Not even an archive could have it?
Other than that, the article is well-written and could easily become FA. Just do a "ping" like this @Tintor2: when you want talk to me. By the way, do you know how to do source reviews. I'd need that to my FAC. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2:
- Shortened the third paragraph some, while retaining the last couple of sentences regarding its nominations.
- In response to the Plot issue, the "Character" section that precedes "Plot" says that Megarea is a Fury and explains the Furies. Did change it to "The Fury Megaera" etc.
- That "rule" is kind of annoying, especially if the seceding sentences/quotes all come from the same source. Nonetheless, done.
- Annoyingly, yes, it has disappeared from their website. I mistakenly did not archive them when I should have, or maybe I did try to archive them then, but because the website has an age verification, it screws with archiving. I don't remember exactly. I also did not expect them to completely remove it from their website, considering that was the only place to access it. I did find it elsewhere, and although those are the actual images of the graphic novel from Santa Monica's website back then, that is a fan wiki.
- Thanks for the comments, and if no one else gets on the source review for you, I'll do it tomorrow. --JDC808 ♫ 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look through the article, and I can't see anything that will stop me from giving this article a Support. Well done, JDC808. I hope it actually passes this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from GamerPro64[edit]
- Looking through the sources most of them seem to be all right. The only source that is rather questionable is the PlayStation LifeStyle sources. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus of its reliability, indicated by the most recent discussion. GamerPro64 21:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GamerPro64: I used those because the site was not marked as unreliable at the time of using the sources and there were not any previous discussions at the time. Basing it on that and having read over the sources, they seemed to check out okay when I used them for this article. It looks as if the only person who thinks that PlayStation LifeStyle is unreliable is czar in both discussions on the matter. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allright. Personally I'm fine with the usage of PSLS. But I want to also mention citation 31, which is GameTrailers. Since the website is dead and got redirected to YouTube, I think there should be an attempt to find a working link to the video or replace the source. GamerPro64 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can find a replacement. --JDC808 ♫ 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GamerPro64: I was able to just remove the GameTrailers source as other sources already there covered its info. --JDC808 ♫ 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished reading through the article and I couldn't find any issues to raise, so I'll be glad to lend my support here. One minor thing I want to mention is to be careful about personifying publications – in the reception section for example I'm seeing "Edge said the multiplayer element is an "evolutionary step"". But feel free to ignore that. This is a great article! JAGUAR 17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jaguar: Thank you, and the reason for that is because no author's name was given for the Edge review, just "Edge Staff". I changed the wording slightly, with that particularly instance, for example, "The review from Edge magazine said..." --JDC808 ♫ 17:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I forgot to mention that! The online version of Edge don't usually leave the authors' names, so as a rule of thumb I usually write "A reviewer from Edge" etc. JAGUAR 23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is a little uneven in places. I'll note a few examples, along with a couple of other points I saw as I scanned the article. It's not all that far off FA quality, but I think a copyedit is needed.
"the new World Weapons mechanic": I've no idea what "mechanic" means here; I assume it's a standard video game term. Can it be linked to something?
"A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes launched as Rise of the Warrior prior to the game's release": I don't know what "prequel to the single and multiplayer modes" means, and "launched as" is a bit jargony.
It means just as it says. Prequel means the events that are set before the current events. The single-player/multiplayer modes are the current events in terms of this game's narrative. I'm not sure what to replace "launched" with. I don't want to put "released" because the sentence ends with that. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I sat on this overnight and reworded as seen here. --JDC808 ♫ 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's clearer -- I hadn't realized till you rewrote that sentence that the graphic novel was only available online, and only temporarily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"received generally favorable reception": you don't receive reception, you receive reviews or comments.
- changed "reception" to "reviews". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series": wordy; just "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle as true to the series" would do.
"but accidentally facilitates his freedom": "facilitates" is too vague; can we either be more specific, or just say "accidentally lets him go"? Or "he escapes"?
- It's not quite that simple. I was gonna try to explain it, but it would be easier for you to just see: event occurs from 6:00 to 7:00. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. He catches her claw in the chain; tricking/forcing her into breaking that chain, and from then on it's a fight. "Facilitates his freedom" isn't wrong, but it's a little more polysyllabic than I think we need. How about "but he manages to break his chains"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to "but he manages to break free". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"in a preceding week": why "a week"? Is each turn a week?
- As the "Setting" section outlines, the narrative takes place over a period of 4 weeks, and shifts between the present and the past. The game begins in the present, then shifts to the past (3 weeks before the present). Just to note, this isn't a "turn based" type of game. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought over this one today as well. Reworded as "which the Furies had confiscated from him when he was imprisoned". --JDC808 ♫ 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The decision to add multiplayer came about from curiosity": I don't think this adds much to the quotes that follow; I'd cut this or the quotes, perhaps with a slight rephrase since "came about from curiosity" is a bit vague.
- "Although the original idea for multiplayer was exclusively co-op, as development progressed, the team realized it was not what they wanted. Before the first press show, the team found the experience they wanted": repetitive.
- I was stumped on this one. This whole paragraph was copy-edited by a GOCE copy-editor (the whole article has at least once), and I made little adjustments as it looked good and no one else saw any issues with it. I changed the second sentence to: "Before the first press show, the team found their ideal multiplayer experience". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the source; it looks like "The Road to Multiplayer Was Longer than Expected" is the source for these sentences and the one or two above them. It's tough because the source is vague, but I would guess someone who's played the game would know exactly what is meant. For example, "the heart of what would become our final multiplayer game" means something to someone who's played multiplayer, but it doesn't mean much to me. I think what's bothering me now is mostly the repetition of "it was not what they wanted...the experience they wanted", plus the fact that I don't know what it means. I'll think some more about this and see if I can suggest a way to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Christopher Shy was the artist of the graphic novel" seems an odd way to say it. If he's considered the author, I'd start that paragraph with "Rise of the Warrior was a graphic novel by Christopher Shy"; if he simply produced the art for it then something like "with art by Christopher Shy" would work.
- "Because of their focus on preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, single-player received less attention. When single-player was reemphasized, its production was accelerated, resulting in less focus on multiplayer. Development focus shifted between single-player and multiplayer throughout its entire course": also repetitive.
- Can you elaborate, because I am not sure how to address this without losing clarity in what's being described here. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see it'll be hard. I'll try to come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A separate point on that paragraph: I think it would make more sense to start by saying it's a graphic novel, and giving the information related to that, and then following up with the information on the social experience. Or was the novel not published till after the social experience was completed?
- The 20 chapters were released from October 2012 to March 2013, and the social experience happened simultaneously. Made this change. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The demo showcased that Kratos would": "showcase" as a verb is jargon; make it something like "An encounter [...] was included in the demo, but was cut from the final game".
Changed to "At E3 2012, a single-player demo was shown, featuring new gameplay mechanics and combat systems." Also added about the one part being cut. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I misread here. I didn't realize until just now that you had jumped backwards in the article to the Development section. I thought you were still in the Release section. Reworded this spot with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"who have each done voice work": should be "had each done".
- Are you sure on that? --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. Past perfect tense is used when you're talking about an event that is in the past of another event being described in the simple past tense. Here we have (simplifying): "West, Barbeau, and Freeman, who have each worked on previous installments, voiced characters". If we were hiring them to work on the game right now, and were talking about their previous experience, we'd say "they have worked on previous installments", but since they voiced this game a few years ago, we'd say "had worked" when referring to the past of that time. I wouldn't oppose if you really want to keep it as is; I think it's wrong, but it's pretty minor. Perhaps you could get another opinion from another copyeditor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- I haven't read the whole article; these are just some examples. I'll revisit after a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed and/or responded to all above points. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above points are mostly dealt with; I'll do another pass and leave any additional notes below. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.
I'd suggest cutting the parenthetical "elephantaur" since it's unlinked and it's not clear what it means. Perhaps move it to a footnote, where you could explain it?
- Cut. It was just the name they had used when they showed the first demo, but changed in the final game. Not actually sure why they changed it as elephantaur makes more since because they are elephants that are like Minotaurs. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of the monsters also appear in the multiplayer": should this be "multiplayer mode", not just "multiplayer"?
- Done. Was using shorthand there. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Another new addition": redundant; if it's an addition it's new. Perhaps "new feature", or "new mechanic", if I understand the usage of "mechanic"?
- Changed to mechanic. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When certain foes, such as a cyclops or a juggernaut, have been sufficiently weakened, the player may jump on its back and briefly force it to attack other foes": this starts with foes in the plural ("have been"), but then you have "its"; I think it could be recast to be singular or plural, but it's inconsistent as it stands.
"a first and only for the series": "first" is redundant with only. How about "God of War: Ascension is the only game in the series to offers an online multiplayer feature. Up to eight players can take part. The main objective..." I don't think you need "a small story element"; it's covered by the rest of the paragraph.
I copyedited that paragraph to get rid of an apparent inconsistency between singular "player" and plural "players"; please check I didn't screw up the intended meaning.
"Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, which takes place before Chains of Olympus (2008) and ten years before the original God of War (2005)." I'm not clear what "which" refers to -- the game events, or Kratos killing his family? If the latter, are the game events before or after Chains of Olympus?
- It's referring to both. The game's narrative begins 6 months after Kratos had killed his family. Timeline: Ares tricked Kratos into killing his family, then six months later, Ascension, then after that, Chains of Olympus; CoO takes place sometime in the 10-year gap between Ascension and the original God of War. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you explain it is clearer than in the article; the fact that CoO can't be given an exact time is what makes it hard. How about "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, and ten years before the original God of War (2005); Chains of Olympus (2008) takes place before some time between Ascension and God of War."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's the only thing annoying about CoO. All that we were told is that it takes place during Kratos' 10 years of service to the gods, which is that 10-year gap. Changed with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The plot paragraph starting "A week later" seems to have inconsistent tenses; if it's "Kratos is ambushed", should it be "who confiscate" in the same sentence? And "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes" is a past tense between two sentences in present tense.
- Fixed the first tense issue. The other one, "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes", is past tense because because it's not occurring in the present. At that part, Orkos is telling Kratos what happened to the Oracle, and revealing that the Eyes of Truth that he's seeking are actually the Oracle's eyes. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors were either not interested, feeling that God of War was a single-player-only experience, or, in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during development": I copyedited this a little but I got stuck on something I don't have enough context to feel confident of rewriting accurately. You have "game directors were either...or...it was cut...". If you have "game directors were either A or B", both A and B have to fit after "game directors were", which is not the case here.
- Reworded as "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors felt that God of War was a single-player-only experience; in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during its development." --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; I tweaked it to "during development" which feels more concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'For Ascension, the development team decided to seriously consider multiplayer and questioned whether or not it could be done, and if it would be fun. Multiplayer was first tested using Kratos, and Lead Combat Designer Jason McDonald said the game testers had "a lot of fun". Seeing their reaction made the team feel that multiplayer was worth investing in.' I think this is a bit wordy. How about 'For Ascension, the development team made the decision to invest in multiplayer after a simple version, tested using two players, each with [or "each playing"?] Kratos, turned out to be "a lot of fun" for the game testers.'
- Done, but trimmed down the middle part to just say "tested using two Kratoses". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
I've been trying to copyedit the third development paragraph, but I'm stuck because when they say "they found their ideal multiplayer experience", and it's not co-op, I can't be sure what they mean. I assume they mean that they felt two players was not enough; the eight-person experience was better, in their eyes. The source isn't specific enough for me to be comfortable saying that, unless you have other sources that would support it. Assuming that's not the case, here's a suggested rewrite:
- The development team faced a number of challenges in adding multiplayer to an established single-player franchise. Other established franchises had been criticized for sub-par multiplayer implementations, so Santa Monica felt they had to prove to critics that their multiplayer mode would not be "tacked on". Since multiplayer was new to the team, new staff were hired who specialized in multiplayer engineering and design, but Santa Monica didn't realize the amount of work required for the experience they had envisioned. Development was delayed because multiplayer mode required several rewrites. The player navigation code had to be changed for online play, which was initially designed for co-op; the team eventually decided this was unsatisfactory, and the changed approach cost significant development time. Local co-op was also explored, but the team decided to keep multiplayer online-only. The team finally "found the heart of [the] final multiplayer game" shortly before the first press show. Development focus switched back and forth between single player and multiplayer; single-player received less attention while the team were preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, but when single-player mode was reemphasized prior to its public debut at E3, multiplayer mode suffered.
- This is more than just a trivial copyedit, so a couple of reasons might be in order:
- Since "the heart of ... final multiplayer game" isn't made explicit, I think it's best to quote it rather than rephrase.
- I cut "difficult task"; it's clearly implied by the rest of the paragraph.
- I connected the hiring to "didn't realize the work required"; I think it flows better, and I think the sources support it.
- I got rid of "what they wanted", which I think is just too vague; I know it's in the sources but it jars.
- I moved up the "local co-op" note to fit in with the other comments about how multiplayer mode would work.
- I added the mention of E3 to justify the reemphasis on single-player.
- I put the information about development switching back and forth into a single sentence to avoid it sounding repetitive.
If you don't like this version, that's fine, but I think it fixes some issues that would need to be fixed in some other way.
- I implemented your rewrite. I agree that it flows better and it trims it down a little bit too. I don't remember any of the other sources getting anymore specific on "their ideal multiplayer experience." --JDC808 ♫ 02:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence starting "He said a cooperative mode" places "would be cool" after another quote, but the source really has that refer to the cooperative mode itself. I'd make this "He liked the idea of a cooperative mode, and added "I'd love to see player one be Kratos...".
I'd also give the date of the interview with Jaffe, to make it clear Jaffe's opinions were given prior to the single-player demo. Was it also prior to the multiplayer press show?
- Changes. I wanted to say after, but had to go back and check. The first interview was before, the second was after. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More:
"The testing allowed the developers to validate that their system would hold up to the criticism and abundance of players once the game launched": suggest "The beta allowed the developers to make sure that the game design would meet with the approval of existing fans of the series, and that the system could cope with high usage", or perhaps "cope with a high volume of players".
"Because multiplayer was new, the beta allowed the team to prepare for the final game." Suggest cutting this; it doesn't really add any information.
Can we get a link for "PAL regions"?
"In the first challenge, the teams competed to earn their army a week of exclusive, early access to the multiplayer beta test that began on December 12, and 30 days of PlayStation Plus, which was won by the Spartans; the Trojans received access on December 17": what does "and 30 days of PlayStation Plus" mean? From the sources I think this means that the winning team also gained access to the PlayStation Plus version earlier, but it's not clear.
- Earlier in the article, there's a mention of "PlayStation Plus subscribers" with it linked. PlayStation Plus is a premium version of PlayStation's online gaming service. In the case here, it means they got a 30-day trial. Reworded slightly to say "one-month subscription to PlayStation Plus". --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest cutting "also referred to as the champion or the redeemed warrior" for concision; it doesn't seem to be referred to subsequently.
- Cut. In the actual graphic novel, he was also referred to as those. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have expected the Rise of the Warrior story to be narrated in historic present, rather than past tense. Are you using past tense because it's in the past of the Ascension story? I'm not sure that's a good enough reason.
- The reason for the past tense is because it's not available anymore (without going to a fan site anyways). It can be changed to present tense if the issue of its availability doesn't matter for what we're trying to present? --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say leave it; I've struck the point. That's an unusual situation. Do you think they'll ever make it available again? Seems odd to have material that people might pay for it and simply keep it locked away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a weird, and a bit annoying, situation. I'm not sure why they didn't keep it when they redesigned their website. I tried emailing a guy at Santa Monica (who had responded to a couple of my emails when this was releasing), but he never responded back. This was about a year ago, though it is possible that he left Santa Monica by that point. I actually just went to Santa Monica's main website and found their email, so I sent them an email to see if I can get some kind of answer in regards to this. They could easily add it back to their website or even just make it a free downloadable zipfile accessed from their website (it was free to view on their website to begin with). This is currently the only place to see it online (Gallery at bottom), but it's a fan wiki, and fan wikis are unreliable. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Other DLC, such as XP boosters, are available": surely "is available"; the relevant noun is "content", right?
- You're right. I was looking at the plural "boosters" in that case. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rafe Pearlman and Ciscandra Nostalghia helped Bates and contributed their voices to the score; Pearlman provided thematic voices and Nostalghia created the voice of the Furies": a bit wordy. What are "thematic voices"? And what does "created" mean here? Sang? Or came up with the idea for the sound of?
- They both sang and are credited as "Solo Male Voice" and "Solo Female Voice", respectively. For Rafe Pearlman, it just says that he provided thematic vocal work. It doesn't get anymore specific than that. In regards to Ciscandra Nostalghia, to quote the booklet exactly, it says she "unleashed the devil inside to create the creepy atmospheric sound of the Furies." --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is more than we need; I'd suggest cutting this to just say they were the two (or the two main) singers or voice artists. I also just noticed "top musicians and vocalists" which I think should go as it's sourced to the booklet, which isn't reliable for that sort of comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The webcitation for Emily McMillan's review doesn't seem to contain the text.
- When you open it, is there a large black area below the picture? If so, you have to highlight that area to see the text (not sure why it's like that). --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'He praised the magic system, stating that since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time, "It's a positive step" because players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, and it encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".' Suggest rewording to 'Simmons felt the magic system was a "positive step", since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time and hence players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, which encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".'
- With some slight adjustment, added your rewording. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what the theme of each paragraph in the reception section is -- can you clarify how you've structured it? It looks like praise/gameplay/story/graphics/multiplayer; is that correct? I'll assume that's correct for copyediting and any remaining comments. Don't feel you have to adopt these rewrites or I'll oppose; if you don't like anything I've done let's discuss it. I haven't given the detailed reasons as I did above but can do so if necessary.
- That is correct on its structuring. So far, I've liked the changes you've suggested. I may tweak them a little, but your changes flow well and makes it more concise while still understandable. Sometimes I have the issue of wanting to make something more concise, but I can't seem to find a way without losing clarity. Having someone completely unfamiliar with this helps. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewrite of the gameplay paragraph: 'Combat and the new gameplay mechanics were well-received, with Dale North of Destructoid saying "God of War has never looked or played better than this", and Xav de Matos of Joystiq commenting that the combat is simpler than in God of War III, and rarely required much adjustment. Opinions on difficulty varied; Simmons felt that most of the gameplay was balanced, and that Ascension "is probably the easiest" in the series, but both Simmons and Hollander Cooper of GamesRadar commented that some sections were too difficult. Simmons felt that in some sections the large number of enemies made dying feel "cheap and frustrating", and in Cooper's opinion, at some points the game "[tests] your patience, rather than your skills—including one that's easily the most difficult section in any God of War game to date, for all the wrong reasons".'
- Implemented with slight tweaks. Readded the Trials of Archimedes though because that was a common complaint, especially amongst fans. This section was also the reason for why the Trials is mentioned in the Plot section, otherwise, its mention there would be unnecessary. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Story para: 'Both Simmons and Matos criticized the story; Simmons felt that although the narrative is "meticulously delivered", it "felt a bit incidental"., and said that in comparison to Zeus and Ares, "the Furies don't quite cut it". Matos was critical of the plot framing and the narrative structure as "just too chaotic"; he argued that "the narrative fabric woven throughout the franchise has begun to split", and Ascension does little to enhance its characters "in any meaningful way". However, he did praise the game for providing the "distinct God of War flair".'
- Added just a little to the ending from what was previously there. If that little bit feels unnecessary, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics para: 'Cooper praised the enhanced graphics engine as "not only the best the franchise has seen, but some of the most impressive on the Playstation 3", and was impressed by Kratos's foes; North agreed, saying "there's a shine and polish that runs throughout the game that makes it a perfect send-off for the PS3. Edge magazine also positively reviewed the graphics, but had some frustrations with the visual approach, such as some camera angles.'
- With slight adjustments, added. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplayer para: 'Matos was broadly critical of the game's multiplayer mode, though he singled out some elements, such as the maps, as well-designed. He disliked the connection to single-player mode, and was concerned that although the gameplay translates well into the multiplayer element, "the entire experience may be too chaotic to enrapture a large audience...[multiplayer mode] doesn't feel deep enough to command much more than a furiously dedicated fan following". Simmons was more positive, saying that the multiplayer mode is "a genuinely fresh addition ... that successfully carries over many of the hallmarks of the much-loved single-player [game]". Simmons singled out Team Favor of the Gods as his favorite multiplayer mode, but did not feel that the combat offered enough depth to make multiplayer "a truly engaging experience", describing it instead as "a curiosity that provides a few hours of enjoyment rather than being an essential addition". The review from Edge magazine described multiplayer mode as "chaotic at first", with overwhelming options, but said that it becomes easier as players learn the levels. The Edge review identified the fixed camera system as an asset because "you can always see exactly what’s going on and fight your opponents instead of the viewpoint", and also praised the color-coding system, which "effectively lets you know when you have an opening and when to run".'
The multiplayer para drops a few things, mostly to trim, but I'll just mention "He also worried that balance may be an issue over time" which I dropped because I don't know what it means.
- Implemented. Readded Matos' quote, "a weird narrative tie-in", basically to give the why for why he disliked the connection. Also cut out a couple of instances of "multiplayer" for less repetition of it and since it's implied since the whole paragraph is about it.
Done, finally. I'll go back later and strike the points you've addressed; I have a couple of other FAC reviews I need to go look at now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie:, all above points have been addressed or responded to. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the one point about the voice artists left now. Once that's addressed I'll read through again to see if there are any more nitpicks before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Voice artists point addressed. Also a response about Rise of the Warrior. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the prose is now good enough for FA, and the article is comprehensive and thorough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. Your comments and copy-editing have really helped improve this article. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator notes: I see we have a source reliability review, but I don't see a source formatting review, which we still need. We also need an image review, unless I've missed it somewhere. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source formatting[edit]
- Appears internally consistent. One typo fixed, no more seen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking and thanks for the fix. --JDC808 ♫ 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK[edit]
This image is OK as gameplay sceenshot (with a bit of leeway), but the fair-use rationale could be strengthened if it would illustrate improvements or features of the enhanced graphics engine. Any chance, this image could be linked to specific noteworthy graphical features?
- @GermanJoe: I'm a bit stumped on this one. Do you by chance have an example of what you're looking for here? --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit difficult to explain (don't have an example right now). The article includes a detailed paragraph about the game's enhanced graphics (in "Post-E3 2012"), as well as praise of the graphics engine (in "Reception"). Yet, none of the images points out any specifics of these improvements. My suggestion was to strengthen the generic "gameplay screenshot" rationale with some detail about graphical improvements. However, this was just an optional suggestion to improve the rationale a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Manticore_QTE_tethering.png - fair-use image of game mechanics. OK.
- File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Charybdis.jpg - this one was the most difficult to assess. Not OK. "Fair-use" requires, that an image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and that this information can't be adequately conveyed by text. Currently both of these criteria are not met: The cut scene itself is only mentioned in passing in the article body, and it is easily described as text (the image caption does exactly that). Just to give you some theoretical examples of valid "fair-use" rationales for this image: it would be "fair-use" if the graphical style of this scene influenced other scenes in the actual game, or if the scene was a good example of the game's concept art in general, or if this specific concept art was in itself noteworthy for some artistic reason. Of course any of these theoretical connections would need coverage in the article and a source. Hope this thoughts are helpful ==> the image's rationale needs to be improved, or the image should be removed/replaced. GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed concept art image. --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - it was a nice image, but without a clear rationale WP:NFCC is quite restrictive in such cases. I have updated the status above (the remaining point is only a suggestion) - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
