Talk:A Fistful of Gun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Look for more comments within the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "for one or two of three input devices: mouse, keyboard, and gamepad." -> do we lose anything by saying "for various input devices: mouse, keyboard, and gamepad."

  This might suggest that each character has three input methods, which is not the case: Some of them have two control schemes, some just one. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "The type of weapon affects further attributes, such as the characters' shooting and movement speeds." -> "The type of weapon affects each character's attributes, such as their shooting and movement speeds."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "The mode consists of a string of randomised arenas with destructible environments and enemies that the player needs to kill before progressing to the next stage." -> "The mode consists of a randomized sequence of arena battles, where the player character fights waves of enemies in a destructible environment." (the objectives are covered next sentence.)

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Some levels provide the player with a choosable objective, such as pushing a cart to its destination, engaging in a duel, assassinating a particular foe, or rescuing people from a stampede." -> "In addition to clearing each arena of enemies, the player will sometimes select a level objective, such as..."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Killed enemies drop gold that increases the player's score when collected." -> "The player can increase their score by collecting gold, which is dropped by enemies when defeated."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "procedural fights" -> I think I know what this means, but it might be technical jargon that the average reader wouldn't understand.

  Removed "procedural"; the fights are conceptionally similar to those in the story mode. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "modifiers" -> "ability bonuses" or "improved abilities"

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Development

• "He was based in Wellington, New Zealand, at the time; after the closure of many prominent game studios in his native Brisbane, he moved there in 2009." -> "After the closure of many prominent game studios in his native Brisbane, Hart moved to Wellington, New Zealand in 2009."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "directed a video" -> directed here sounds like they literally are a video director, and I am not sure if that's what you really mean

   Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• This section is generally clear and well written, but the music composition feels a little out of place. Surasshu is notable enough to have their own article -- do the sources say more about this collaboration or how it came about?

  I surprisingly found one post by Surasshu from 2012 in the depths of the Wayback Machine. Added it to the article. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• "after a few play sessions" -> drop this to keep it more concise and readable

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "highlighted the game challenging the player without resorting to bullet hell gameplay as particularly positive" -> "praised the game for challenging the player without resorting to bullet hell gameplay"

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "but lamented that important elements like characters and reticles appeared too small and could go under in busy scenes" -> "but criticized the clarity of the graphics during busy combat scenes."

   Done, though I retained the detail about what elements are unclear. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• It would be nice if we could find more than two reviews from sources that meet the standard at WP:VGSOURCES. Is there even a third?

  There are 10 listed at Metacritic, but only the two used here are at least situational. A further 4 are unreliable, and the rest has either not been discussed yet or only had inconclusive discussions. I think Games.cz might pass, but I would first have to put this through WT:VG/RS. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "Handicaps, power-ups, and mountable horses affect gameplay elements like the player's movement speed, while horses additionally save the player from one enemy shot." -> "Power-ups and handicaps will effect the player character's abilities, such as movement and shooting speed. Horses allow a character to move faster, and endure one additional enemy shot."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "an online and offline arcade mode with up to nine players, and an online versus mode for fights against other players." -> "and multiplayer modes for both cooperative and player-vs-player battles."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is already pretty solid and well-written by GA standards. The reception section could use an additional review. Even if you can't find anything else, I think that some of the existing sources qualify. (PCGamesN for example.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Thanks for the review! See my comments above. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This all looks good. Is there a way to factor some of these into the reception?[1][2][3][4][5] Even if they aren't noted as official scored reviews on Metacritic, they are part of how the game was received. At least one of them could flesh out the reception section. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I added another sentence from the Kotaku Australia bit. The others are more descriptions of the gameplay rather than reviews, nevermind that they were all written before the game was finished. The game is a bit obscure, so having few reviews is expected. I have requested a review of Games.cz at the sources board and will add its review here if it passes. I hope this does not hold up the GA process. IceWelder [✉] 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to give this a pass. I wouldn't hold an article back for having a short review section, and I'm glad we could find at least one other source that worked. Thanks again for all your work. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)