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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [1].

Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment[edit]

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second of three downloadable content expansions for Shovel Knight. If you have participated in the video gaming scene since 2014 onwards, you may have heard of Shovel Knight or witnessed his many cameo appearances ranging from independent titles like Katana Zero, to behemoth blockbuster games such as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. I can affirm that Shovel Knight deserves some of this attention; It has pitch-perfect platforming and is a source of pure nostalgia. Truly the complete package for retrogamers. Specter of Torment would be like the Ninja Gaiden to Shovel Knight's Mega Man, and is an easier but nonetheless fun experience. Inspired by the work done on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, let's see if I can make a Four Award out of this article. The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Quid pro quo. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Easy pass. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
All sources reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check - pass
Replaced with USgamer
Included in the beginning of the third to last paragraph.
Replaced with other source
Replaced with USgamer source
Changed
In the third paragraph of the "Phantom Menace" section, the author says that he prefers the original's style of platforming to Specter of Torment's.

All matters addressed. I am pleased to support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Elias[edit]

Trying to expand my reviewing purview by looking at video game FACs. There is a first-timer whom I am helping and who has their own video game FAC here, so a go at it would be appreciated. of course the "qpq not obligated" caveat applies as always :) will be back with comments ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Gameplay

Plot

Development

Reception

All I got for now . the article is very, very well-written! most of my issues involve concision, which should be pretty easy to address. hope my comments were of help . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Your Power! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power just a nudge :). The Night Watch (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not attending to this sooner @The Night Watch! i wrote on my talk page earlier that I had big events happening at my school last weekend, so my editing capacities were limited. now that i am back, allow me to do another sweep

That will be all! Thank you so much for your diligence with writing the article, whose prose was just as clean and well-written as when I last read it :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 03:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again @Your Power, I believe that I have addressed everything. The Night Watch (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the unstriked comments, it's good practice to have explanations for why some requests weren't addressed. almost there, @The Night Watch. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we have only one more left, @The Night Watch. inching so close to promotion! you got this! ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Night Watch there we go. apologies for procrastinating this, and thanks for reviewing the House of Ashes nom! while I personally feel comfortable with the prose in terms of grammar and flow, I understand the issues raised by MC and GtM below. hence, I am a bit reluctant to support at the moment. when all of the below are resolved, I would be happy to lend it ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I tried clarifying that they are similar. Does this iteration work
Removed
Added a little more.
Changed.
Done
Clarified as the spacing and layout of the level mechanics
Done
Removed that section earlier Done
Moved
Input is the the correct term, it is very common video game speak for "perform" or "do"

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike Christie! I'll be addressing your comments sometime tomorrow or on Tuesday The Night Watch (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie I believe that I have addressed most of your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck or replied to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Did a second pass. The Night Watch (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a couple more points. I will read through again and think about the remaining points and see if have any more concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I've been hesitating over this review for a while. I think the prose could use a copyedit, but if that were the only issue I'm not sure I would oppose. I'm more concerned about some slight imprecisions in the way the source material has been used. For example, "Because players could use the hub to access all of the available levels, unlike the previous two games where the stages could only be completed in a certain order, the team was forced to redesign the easier levels of Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows to be more difficult, while reducing the challenge of the harder stages." The source for this says "Since Specter of Torment allows you to choose the main levels in any order, some of the more difficult stages in Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows were tailored to be a bit easier, while easier ones were amped up to be more challenging. This was a fun way to subvert returning players' expectations. Traditionally "easy" stages like Pridemoor Keep gained a harder edge in Specter of Torment." The problem here is "forced": the source describes it as an idea the team had, not something that they felt obliged to do. Another example: "The team used a level design formula taken from Mega Man, where a complete stage would feature 26 rooms and 6 secret areas, allowing players to recognize how far they had progressed." The source has "Each level should have about 26 regular rooms and 6 secret optional rooms. This formula was counted roughly from Mega Man (which has 25 rooms) for Shovel of Hope, and used again in Specter of Torment. A consistent length means that every stage will take a similar amount of time and have a similarly digestible amount of content. Any longer or shorter and the level might drag on or feel like it was missing stuff. Players start to develop a sense of their progress, and rely on it too ("I bet I'm near the end")." The source makes it clear these numbers are approximate, and that the approach was used for both the original game and this one, and explains why this is helpful for the players. An earlier version of this article mentioned pacing at this point; when I asked what that meant (before I read the source) the nominator took out the reference, but I think it's the point of the source, and an explanation was needed. Another example: "The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming." The source has "Even at the earliest of planning stages, we knew right away that Specter Knight couldn’t just have mobility like his boss battle from Shovel Knight. Floating around freely with a giant scythe doesn’t lend itself to platforming!" This is more of a nitpick, but though I've never played platforming games it seems we don't need to hedge with "believed" -- a free floating protagonist is incompatible with a platforming game. One more example: "They felt that ... players could be challenged if all the mechanics were combined at the end of the level." The source has "Shovel Knight levels share the same general structure for ramping ideas as classic Mega Man levels. Both typically introduce an idea, complicate it, layer it with other ideas, test the player with a really difficult version of the idea, and then cool down from the idea before starting the next idea. And at the end of the level, right before the boss, all the ideas combine for one really tough challenge!" The source says that this was a design approach in which the mechanics were introduced and then combined at the end of the level for a difficult challenge. The wording in the article is vaguer, and doesn't make it clear that this was a conscious strategy on the part of the designers in order to finish each level at a high difficulty. And it's not clear to me that "idea" and "mechanics" can be treated as synonyms in this way -- though I'd defer to a gamer's judgement on whether that's the natural interpretation for someone who knows these games. I'm sorry to oppose, since I think there's a solid basis for a featured article here, but I've found too many of these minor imprecisions to be comfortable with supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the minor imprecisions are a byproduct of how tough it is to craft a Development section using almost exclusively interview sources, but I'll go parsing through the sources to make sure they are as precise as possible. The Night Watch (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of Development looks fine to me, source 8 is used accurately.
  • Second paragraph of Development "Development of Specter of Torment began after..." Bit that it began after Plague of Shadows is correct, "ambitious expansion" is also correct, added a little more on how they believed that the movement in Plague of Shadows made the levels fun to revisit, but that the levels would feel repetitive on a third play through even if they changed the movement.
  • Third paragraph of Development "darker story centered around Specter Knight" looks correct, the material about Plague Knight being chaotic is elaborated upon in source 10 and the second paragraph effectively says that the team received criticism from some players who found Plague Knight too chaotic. I removed the bit about it being difficult to control as it is not explicitly stated in the sources, just that the movement was chaotic. I implemented your suggestion about the flying movement.
  • Fourth paragraph: They did indeed take inspiration from games like Prince of Persia and the other two games for how they designed the platforming and slashing movement. There were ways in which they implemented these inspirations in Specter of Torment, and these ways are not mentioned in the article because I believe that elaborating on exactly how they added these inspirations would be too long and excessively detailed. As such, I believe that it is fine as-is simply to say they took inspiration from these games. I slightly altered the bit about the ninja to clarify that the developers wanted him to act like a "grim reaper ninja", and that they included shrikens in his moveset at one point. I also clarified that the difficulties with the slashing movement was not difficulties with designing the movement, but rather communicating how it worked with players and teaching them how to use it.
I think the hard part is that many of the terms in the Development sources are unfamiliar to people who have not played the game, so it is a difficult balancing act simplifying what they are trying to say while also making the prose precise enough to what the sources are saying. @Mike Christie Let's start with these first four parts and see if I am doing this correctly. If not, I think I might withdraw and work on this outside of FAC. The Night Watch (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little further: For the fifth paragraph, first sentence is correct, source says that it took them a year to design, test, and balance each of the levels. Second sentence has been clarified to be a bit closer to the source, tell me if I need to rephrase it somewhat. Third and fourth sources are clarified as approximate. Fifth sentence has been altered to be a bit less vague, sixth and seventh sentences has been rephrased somewhat.
The Night Watch (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brief input Gog the Mild[edit]

Seeing Mikes comments, I thought I would have a look myself. I have only read the first paragraph of the lead.

Sorry, The Night Watch, but this doesn't seem to do what the first paragraph of a lead is supposed to. I can sympathise with Mike's dilemma, which seems to be that you clearly know what you are writing about, but the article is not pitched at a level understandable by a non-specialist audience. It is possible that the curse of knowledge applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted the lead similarly to the lead of the FA video game DLC BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. There is a wikilink to downloadable content, there is a link to platform game (yes, a platform game is a video game). I will clarify that the players takes the role of Specter Knight in Specter of Torment, there is a helpful link in Gameplay directing unfamiliar readers to the Shovel Knight article to read about its gameplay (same as Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den). Boss fights are also wikilinked. What else can I do to make the article more understandable without causing redundancy with the other linked articles? I'm a bit confused about your concerns here. The Night Watch (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild follow-up ping on the response I raised above. The Night Watch (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikilink is not a substitute for an explanation. See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I still don't understand what you want me to explain here:
  • Dowloadable content is wikilinked and formatted in the lead just the same as BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. That article's lead offers no explanation other than a wikilink to what DLC is since doing so would be redundant and DLC is a common concept with video games.
  • "Platform game" is the same terminology used with multiple other video game FAs, including Katana Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, Super Meat Boy etc. Those articles give no detailed explanation for what a platform game is, most likely because the genre is extremely prevalent. Any given Mario game is a platform game so the vast, vast majority of readers are familiar with the concept.
  • "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight" this is how the sources themselves cover the subject, and nearly all assume familiarity with the original game. This approach is not unusual since Minerva's Den introduces its gameplay in the lead as "Gameplay is similar to that of BioShock 2, with new enemies and weapons."
  • Boss fights are an also extremely well-known concept within video games, we even have articles dedicated to some video game boss characters. Again, I don't know why an explanation is needed in the lead.
What I guess I'm trying to say is that the approach of the article is in line with other video game FAs, and including all those explanations in the lead would be very redundant. I see the points raised above by Mike Christie and I'm still looking to see how to make the article less vague without messing up the wording, but I still don't think any explanations are necessary. The Night Watch (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire[edit]

Side comment

On Mike Christie & Gog the Mild's concerns above: The short version is that I don't think making changes to address them is a good idea, and the article is fine as is. This is a larger topic than just this FAC, though (since something similar came up for the Raichu FAC). To be 100% clear, I agree that FAs should be written as accessibly as possible for a broad audience. But, we also shouldn't needlessly repeat broader-topic material. So to go into it some more...

The essence of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is being able to spinoff long sections into separate articles to keep the length of the content down to encyclopedia article length, not full book length. The assumption is that, in a dead-tree book called "Shovel Knight", it can be chopped up where a chapter of the book called "Specter of Torment" (or "Plague of Shadows" or "King of Cards", etc.) is a separate article. The nature of this means that there will be some repetition, but there's a limit. Something like saying "the gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight's" is fine; in a book that would mean "flip back to the previous chapter you apparently skipped", and on Wikipedia that means "click the wikilink." The alternative would be having to repeat the same material on gameplay in 6+ different places, which would defeat the whole point of summary style - of splitting up the book to a separate article per chapter, conceptually.

On the general gaming terms topic, there's basically a certain understanding that if a reader is truly, truly clueless on the overall topic, they're going to need to read up on some basics first. To keep the topic on games, broadly construed, if someone doesn't know anything about a particular sport, but they're reading about a baseball shortstop or a cricket wicket-keeper or whatever, it's understood that they need to click the wikilink on baseball or cricket or shortstop first. In practice, we don't describe what a shortstop is on all 20,000 articles on baseball shortstops we have on-wiki. To me, this is analogous to the "platform game" or "DLC" analogy - if a reader doesn't understand those terms, it's valid to expect them to start with reading up on that first. Again, the alternative is to explain platform game across 20,000 individual platform games, equivalent to explaining shortstop or catcher 20,000 times. Or, as mentioned already, the Roman example. If a reader is truly clueless about the Roman Republic, doesn't know what a legate is, doesn't know what the Senate was, doesn't know what a legion is, etc., then yeah, they're going to need to read at least a little on the broader topic first.

I'm hesitant to "call out" other FA articles because there's many ways to skin a cat and I'm absolutely not trying to start a FAR or anything, but to pick a recent-ish FA I supported and personally reviewed the sources on... Croatian Spring frankly requires a decent amount of background knowledge. It was an imposing review, and I consider myself pretty well-informed compared to the wider public. If a random American reader doesn't know who Tito was, doesn't know about the SFR Yugoslavia, doesn't know about Yugoslavia's Federal structure, doesn't know about Croatian nationalism... they need to do a lot of reading first. But that's okay. Trying to include all of that would swell the "background" section to be larger than the entire rest of the article. But the article is on the "Croatian Spring", not "Yugoslav History 101 catch-up", which is already written elsewhere - it'd blur the identity of the article to include it. If we're okay with trusting the audience to be either somewhat interested in Yugoslav history to begin with (hence being at the article at all), or else being willing to do some catch-up, it's fine and Working As Intended. Analagously, I think it's fine to expect a certain degree of "if this isn't enough background, please click on the Shovel Knight article, and if you're really unfamiliar with video games, click on the video game / platform game / DLC / etc. articles."

I may turn this into a fuller review at a later point, just wanted to drop off my two cents here. And to reiterate again, I wholeheartedly agree that articles should be as accessible to readers as possible, so enforcing this is good for when there truly isn't enough background explanation provided. I just think the standard is met here for sufficient background to get a reader up to speed. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I don't see "2017" anywhere in the lede. That seems kind of a strange omission - a casual reader just skimming for dates might think that Torment came out in 2014, too.

Done

I disagree with Vami IV's (EDIT: ChrisTheDude's) earlier comment on the lede. "Master" is gender-neutral these days, and "mistress" makes it sound like Specter Knight is having an affair and cheating on his wife to a casual reader. Maybe skip the contested word entirely and just say "knights for the Enchantress, the main villain of Shovel Knight"? Up to you.

Done

Is "redesigned" really the best word? I feel like "redesigned" suggests more like Yacht Club edited the original levels, but they're just new levels. Perhaps something like "features new levels and redesigned boss fights"?

Done

Okay, the lead is fairly short, so I guess there's room, but... is exactly how long the dev team spent on balancing the levels really so important as to be lede-worthy?

Is there anything else that could be lead-worthy? The art design? The character moveset? I agree that it really isn't too vital but I am unsure what else to include

Nitpick: My understanding is that it wasn't the criticism, exactly. It was just that Plague Knight's movement was too hard for a subset of the player base - the devs said that completion stats for PoS were noticeably lower than base Shovel Knight. In other words, it wasn't necessarily the complaints that were instrumental, but rather a "silent minority" sending a danger signal to the devs. Maybe something more like "after feedback that the movement of Plague Knight was too complex?" (EDIT: To expand on this distinction a little, imagine a big MMO developer gets feedback on each patch which always includes a harsh chorus of criticism. However, in this hypothetical, one patch shows player counts drop by 20%, along with the usual criticism, and the dev makes changes in response. While there was criticism here and a change resulted, it wasn't really the criticism that drove the devs, but rather the stats.)

Reworded

Same feedback here as the lead. Checking the source, GameStop simply says "new level designs". I get that the new levels have similarities (of course they do, they're set in similar regions) but they are genuinely new levels IMO.

Reworded

Optional: As written, this sentence is a bit who-cares. The developers had some ideas that didn't work out, and replaced them? Stop the presses. That sounds like every creative work ever. If there's a more interesting story at the core here or something else that's trying to be communicated, then maybe include that, or rephrase the sentence to get at what was distinctive? But if there's truly nothing to say otherwise, I guess this is fine if uninteresting.

Mike Christie wanted the wording to be closer to the sources, so I tried to make it closer to the source even if it definitely feels uninteresting.

Either use a period, or don't capitalize "they". Maybe worth rephrasing some anyway; perhaps: "The developers, after playing the game so much themselves, found it tricky to [[game balance|balance]] the levels. They decided late in development they had made the levels too difficult, and gradually reduced their challenge before release." Or something like that.

Done

Nitpick: Maybe cause for a new paragraph here? I understand the paragraph would only be two sentences long, but it's slightly jarring because the theme of the paragraph is "changes from Plague of Shadows" and suddenly we're talking about a totally separate topic, the soundtrack, for the last two sentences.

Done

(Comment, non-actionable) This reads strangely at first, because it makes it sound like Kaufman was creating music on the side while gaming on Twitch, since that's the default assumption of what someone is doing by "streaming on Twitch." Source clears it up though, and I guess it would be too awkward to explain "(and he was just creating music while streaming, Twitch was just the platform, he wasn't also gaming)" or the like.

Reception section for later, perhaps. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section commentary:

"Some" might be over-qualified. It's understood that not all reviews parrot the exact same line, but as long as other reviews aren't actively contradicting a sentiment found in many reviews, I think it's fine to just bring it up as an example of critical response, and remove the word "some".

Done

Very optional because there's disagreement here, but I will just drop off my usual two cents that I personally prefer the wordier style that includes the human author of the review. Yes, it's in the cite, and yes, it makes the flow slightly worse, but it's also more accurate. Humans write reviews, not magazines. (But as already noted, this is a matter of preference, so a thought if you agree with the above, but it's not blocking if you disagree.)

I prefer to not use the names to make the flow better, but I agree that it makes the article more accurate. I wish there was a way to compromise somehow, but alas it was a choice between flow and accuracy.

(non-actionable) Side chatter: This is referenced, but dang, game reviewers have no taste. Specter of Torment is about the tragedy of mind control and evil artifacts that go boom and is played seriously, which is the complete wrong call for Shovel Knight. Plague of Shadows plot was way better by embracing silliness more, which fits with the general tone. But if nobody published agrees with me, oh well.

Yeah I agree, Plague of Shadows was way better story wise even if the levels were just the same old-same old.

Same issue as above - it's understood that by writing "Critics" it does not mean literally every single critic, so IMO the word "Some" is dispensable.

Done

I don't think this accurately reflects the source. It's implying that only "some" of the bosses were fun and that these were the bosses that were changed the most, but that isn't what GameStop says. I'd rewrite to be closer to GameStop - that they found the redesigned bosses an "enjoyable surprise" and thought that some of the bosses were too similar (but not imply that they weren't fun).

Done

Is this really an "and" connector? They're contrasting opinions. I understand that it's OR to directly set them in opposition to each other unless one is referencing the other, but maybe "while" would work instead rather than "and"?

Done

Reverse complaint here as GameStop: I think this is too close to the slightly dopey original wording in Shacknews which uses "scope" in a nonintuitive way. Given the next sentence, maybe "some players would dislike the narrow focus on platforming gameplay", which makes more clear the nature of the complaint?

Done

"Competent" is an unusual choice here - perhaps "excellent"?

Done

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SnowFire, I believe that I have addressed your comments The Knight Watch (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work!
The one remaining nitpick from above (not blocking the support because of this, no hurry, but something to maybe improve regardless): If you agree that the length of time the devs spent tweaking levels isn't really that interesting, then I would recommend removing it from the lede, and replacing with basically any other piece of dev information desired. That the levels were specially designed for Specter Knight's movement style? The balance between platforming, combat, and exploration? Jake Kaufman doing the soundtrack? Or even just the total length of time spent developing the game as a whole? Really anything else from the dev section is more "interesting". SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down for this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, usually I manage comments within a week but I was a bit behind here.

I want to start by addressing Gog's comments. I think it's unreasonable to expect video game articles to be explained in greater detail than any other article just because some readers may not be entirely familiar with the subject matter in general. This level of explanation is not a standard expectation for video game FAs. I have two, Islanders (video game) and Islands: Non-Places, which open with "Islanders is a casual city-building game" and "Islands: Non-Places is a 2016 abstract art game", respectively, a level of detail considered acceptable at FAC. I opened a few other VGFAs at random and none of them had the granularity Gog is asking for here.

Let's compare to other media like films and music. Fearless (Taylor Swift album) has "Fearless is a country pop album" in the lead; The Mummy (1999 film) opens with "The Mummy is a 1999 American action-adventure film". Neither stops to explain what those genres mean, or what a studio album is, or a cursed mummy, and nor should they; that's the job of the articles on those concepts. Straying outside the limited realm of popular media, Night Watch's galley example is a salient comparison. A reader not well-versed in ancient naval warfare may not be entirely certain of what a galley is, but it's a common term in the subject area and we shouldn't have to grind the article to a halt to interject an explanation for them. Same here with common terms like boss fight and platform game.

Okay, enough on that, let's get to the real review. All comments and suggested wordings are open to discussion or disagreement.

Lead, gameplay, plot
Development to Character design
Level design
Release and reception

Okay, done at last. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PMC! I'll get these comments done sometime tonight. The Night Watch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- This has been open over two months and has yet to gain consensus to promote; I note also that NightWatch has had to step back from WP so resolution of outstanding concerns won't be possible for a while. Wishing NW the best and hoping they'll be back in due course to revisit the article and perhaps bring back to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More