Talk:CT Special Forces: Back to Hell

Sources

Getting ready to revamp this. Sources listed below for use. Nomader (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/08/01/ct-special-forces-2-back-in-the-trenches
• https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/ct-special-forces-2-review/1900-6103667/
• https://archive.org/search.php?query=http%3A%2F%2Fgameboy.gamezone.com%2Fgzreviews%2Fr22809_GBA.htm (GZ search, not working currently)
• http://www.gamerankings.com/gba/917710-ct-special-forces-2-back-in-the-trenches/index.html (GR)

use this also https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/games/franchise/2292-ct-special-forces DoctorHver (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that it took almost six months to develop CT Special Forces: Back to Hell? Source: "Power-Advance: How long did it take you to make the game? And for the first opus? Christian Votava: We took a little over three months to develop the first opus, and almost six months for the sequel." Google Translated source
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Donelson
  • Comment: Not every day that you expand a stub that you created yourself 13 years ago!

5x expanded by Nomader (talk). Self-nominated at 17:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/CT Special Forces: Back to Hell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Sufficiently and recently expanded. It is neutral, at one point almost annoyingly so (something I could not resist addressing), and perfectly sourced. QPQ is done, and I like how constructive that review is. I do, however, feel that a more interesting hook could be produced from this article. Few people know how long it takes to produce run and gun video games, so few will find it interesting that it took developers six months to produce this one. I will try to think of a hook myself, but someone more knowledgeable would probably be better at it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Surtsicna: Thanks for the reminder that there is such a thing as too neutral! I always am a bit paranoid when writing video game reception sections because they have a habit of being quite boring to write sometimes, and I'm always very keen on ensuring that everything is giving equal coverage. I'll keep it in mind for the future. For the hook -- that's a fair point. Proposed a couple of ALTs below, happy to keep milling around for some more if needed. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    • ALT1: ... that the North American version of CT Special Forces: Back to Hell wasn't released until several months after the game's European launch? "... the original game hit the US several months after the sequel was already in the can over in the European market, so the version we were playing already felt dated. The aforementioned follow-up has finally reached these shores more than a half a year later..." [1]; Jeuxvideo release date information [2], US release date information [3]
    • ALT2: ... that the developers of CT Special Forces: Back to Hell responded to criticism of their previous game's password save system by making even more detailed passwords? "Power-Advance: Since the levels are longer, what type of backup did you choose for CT 2 (backup battery or system by codes)? Christian Votava: We decided to voluntarily double the size of the cartridge, and in return to keep our backup system by password, but this time, by level and not by world as in the first opus. The players have been heard!" [4] (in French)

      Was the game not released in North America only a week shy of a whole year after its release in Europe? If so, I would go with something like:

      • ALT3: ... that American gamers waited a year longer than Europeans to play CT Special Forces: Back to Hell?

      If you agree with this hook, another editor would have to review it. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

      • @Surtsicna: A week and a half, but saying a 'year' is broadly correct here. I prefer this hook over the others I've proposed, happy to wait for another person to check it out. Nomader (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A kind request for the review of ALT3, so that we can finally promote Nomader's 13-year-long project! :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approve ALT3. I wonder if there was some more interesting fact about the game but if not, I'll accept it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking of which... isn't ALT2 slightly more interesting though? Is it just me? BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @BorgQueen: For what it's worth, I found it absolutely hilarious when I read that as their approach and it's why I actually expanded this article in the first place, because I was gobsmacked when I read that in their interview. Leave it up to y'all to decide which one you like best! Nomader (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood it, Nomader. Were people annoyed that the password save system in the first game was too detailed? The article says that the developers "improved the game's password save system", which seems like an unsurprising response to the criticism of the password save system. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: It was definitely a criticism that the game had a password save system in the first place, not that it was too detailed. One review of the original ([5]) wrote: "Yes, CT Special Forces is a slightly no-frills GBA production, and the lack of a battery save is a bit of a downer considering that it takes a significantly long time to earn the right to continue in the game, something that should be a lot more frequent in handheld gaming." The improvement the developers made here was to have more detailed passwords more often so you wouldn't have to wait as long, instead of spending a tiny bit more to make saves work normally (which was already pretty standard by this time). Nomader (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that is hilarious! It flew over my head. In that case I too vote for ALT2. Could this be made clearer in the article and ALT2? E.g. "criticism of their game having a detailed password save system by making an even more detailed one"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Ha I'm glad you like it! I fear that saying "having a detailed password system" for the first game is a bit too off-source, as the whole criticism was that it wasn't a battery save and they didn't pop enough (you'd have to play for *ages* to be able to be able to get any password to pop at all... in a game meant to be played on the go). It's why I kept the language the way that it is here -- which isn't as funny, but one would say is more accurate to the source. Nomader (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nomader and Surtsicna: Just so the promoting editor/admin doesn't get confused, let's make it clear that we all prefer ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Agreed, I'm good with that! I think it's already been approved so we should be good for this to be promoted? (Noticed that it's been two weeks now since this comment so wanted to add this for anyone who's seeing it that it's the consensus of the discussion and I'm good here too!). Nomader (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Release date

@Cat's Tuxedo: I have never felt more old than realizing that GameFAQs isn't an adequate source for release dates because of a 2011 discussion that I missed... anyways, luckily I haven't used it in years until now, but I did it here because I was drawing blanks. I've used Jeuxvideo instead (the game is French so that would be the home market it was released in) for PAL dates and the only place I was able to find a 100% "I know this hasn't been changed over the years" release date was that Honolulu Observer clip that I found. If you have suggestions for other places, please let me know. Nomader (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:CT Special Forces: Back to Hell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'll pick this one up. Look for further comments within the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Giving this a first pass. This might take more than one set of revisions, but I believe it can reach GA with some work.

  • Lead
  • The opening sentence runs a little long and complex. I'd consider carving out a new sentence for the platform information, or at least the port. Maybe combine it with the sentence about publishing, since it's the publisher who is associated with its release.
  • "The player shoots enemies with a variety of weapons and through a number of different missions and minigames as they attempt to reach the end of the levels" -> "The player completes levels by shooting enemies with a variety of weapons, and by completing additional minigames."
  • For the reception, try to attribute it to someone. Even if it's just journalists, or what have you.
  • Gameplay
  • The "seemingly" is enough of a WP:WEASEL word that you either want to verify that the team was in fact inspired by Metal Slug, or you want to drop it entirely.
  • "acting as an army of one fighting an army of terrorists by themselves" -> by themselves and "army of one" are redundant
  • "As players move forward in missions, enemies will appear from the environment and the side of the screen to attack the player" -> "As players move forward in missions, enemies will appear from off screen and within the environment."
  • "The game controls using the D-pad, allowing the player to move in 6 different directions and to crouch and jump as well" -> "The player can use the direction pad to move in six different directions, as well as crouch or jump."
  • Do they actually use the D-pad to jump?
  • "The game contains a number of platform game elements like ladders and ledges that the player must climb or jump to" -> "Levels contain a variety of platform game elements that the player must climb or jump to, including ledges and ladders."
  • "The game contains 21 missions total, which the player completes by shooting through an army of enemies as they act as an "army of one" and use a variety of weapons to make it through." -> "The game contains a total of 21 missions, which the player completes by shooting enemies using a variety of weapons".
  • Link minigame
  • "Each mission contains unique minigame, such as opening a parachute on time, or holding position in the back of a jeep."
  • "The game also includes Silent Scope-inspired levels where the player must shoot enemies from the perspective of being behind the crosshairs of a sniper rifle in a first person perspective." -> "The game also includes missions where the player uses a sniper rifle to shoot enemies from a first person perspective."
  • "A multiplayer mode allows for two players in the Game Boy Advance version to connect with a Game Link Cable to play a time attack mode together to attempt to get a high score" -> "The Game Boy Advance version supports a two player mode, where players play co-operatively against a timer and try to get a high score."
  • "The game added to the controls of the game as well, allowing the player to roll to enter tight areas." -> "For example, the game adds a player ability to roll, allowing them to enter tight areas."
  • Move the previous sentence to just after the first sentence of the paragraph, making it the second sentence.
  • "The game also adds tank combat and a wider inventory of weapons, including knives."
  • Development and release
  • Break the first sentence into two shorter sentences. It will be easier to read, and flow better without trying to cram together too many ideas.
  • " It took the team a further almost 6 months to develop the sequel, Back to Hell" -> "The team immediately began work on the sequel, with Back to Hell completed after an additional 6 months of work."
  • link focus group
  • " After the first game was criticized for its password-save system that insufficiently granular, the development team decided to have Back to Hell's save system to use a more detailed password save system that brought players back to individual levels" -> "The team responded to criticism of the first game's password-save system by including more detailed save data, allowing players to return to individual levels."
  • I recommend putting the largest improvement first, and breaking apart the sentence to do so.
  • The release information is a little contradictory. If they eventually found a North American partner, it's not really accurate to say there was no North American release. I'd find a shorter way to cover the same information.
  • Reception
  • " noted possible improvements that they hoped to see in a sequel" -> This is unclear. Do you mean that some of the things they expected in a sequel weren't there? What were they?
  • "The game's graphics and feel were compared to the Metal Slug series by numerous reviewers because of its style of gameplay and its visual style" -> "Several reviewers compared the game's graphics to the Metal Slug series, due to its gameplay and visual style."
  • "Provo noted that the comparisons to the Metal Slug series the previous game received, and felt that "the same comparisons hold true for the sequel" with a note that the graphics had improved further" -> "Provno compared both games in the series to Metal Slug, while noting that the graphics had improved over its predecessor."
  • "GameZone commented that "You'll know exactly why" the game is compared extensively to Metal Slug if you were a fan of the game as the look and feel felt extremely similar (in a positive note)" -> "GameZone also made positive comparisons between Back to Hell and Metal Slug, noting their similar look and feel."
  • was like Metal Slug and unlike Contra. -> "was more like Metal Slug than other run and gun titles."
  • "limitations of the mobility for the on-foot sequences as well" / "limited maneuverability" -> this is unclear. Do they mean it felt slow? Stiff?
  • "GameZone wrote that the enemies were often not "smart enough to figure out they're being shot at" and felt it was a weakness i the game's AI" -> "GameZone also criticized the game's artificial intelligence, saying that enemies were often not aware they were being shot at."
  • I think there's a better way to highlight the PlayStation review, covering the actual quality of the game. The lack of multiplayer mode can be noted elsewhere in the article.

  Let's start there. It will probably need at least one more pass, but we can get it to GA. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this incredibly thorough review, really appreciate it. I've addressed the lead and gameplay sections so far and will have questions/comments on the edits once I've gotten through the rest of them tomorrow. Again, thanks so much for putting all of this together! Nomader (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and made changes to the development section. Some notes on my changes below:

  I changed "The team immediately began work on the sequel, with Back to Hell completed after an additional 6 months of work" to "Back to Hell was completed after an additional 6 months of work" -- it's implied in the source but not explicit that they began development immediately after, so I took that out to avoid any incorrect ambiguity on start times.

  I modified ""including more detailed save data" to say "including more detailed passwords" which is more accurate -- this game still doesn't use normal save data, and it's a criticism that comes up in the reception section.

  I actually ended up adding a bit to the last paragraph to make it more clear (made sure to note there was no "simultaneous" North American release, that North American 'preview' coverage came from imported cartridges, and added in a note of when Hip published it in North America).

  I also changed the lead and infobox to correctly represent who's developed what here proactively here based on all of the other changes I'm making.

  Also added in a sentence on four reviewers' reactions to the sound design which wasn't previously covered.

  I added in a note in the reception section from the French review site Jeuxvideo on the GBA version -- it was the original market it was developed in so thought it'd be relevant to work stuff in from them. If I was going for FA, I'd add them into each section, but I think the reception section is now broad enough to meet the GA criteria of "broad in its coverage" here.

  Everything else should be addressed above! @Shooterwalker: pinging you here, and really appreciate the thorough review again. Nomader (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's improved a lot. I think the main thing would be to work on the lead. Why don't you look at the Contra III: The Alien Wars lead for a comparable game and pacing? If you had two short paragraphs that cover the same subject matter with roughly the same organization, you'd be in better shape. It spends a little too much time on re-releases and publishing info, and could spend more on the game's creative elements, development, and reception.

  A few other small comments:

  • "The player controls an operative acting as an "army of one" fighting an army of terrorists." -> "The player controls an operative acting as an "army of one" against an army of terrorists."
  • "enemies will appear" -> "enemies appear" (generally try to maintain a consistent verb tense)
  • "Levels contain a variety of platform game elements" -> "Levels also include platform game elements" (shorter)
  • "including opening your character's parachute when the game indicates it and a sequence where the player must stay on the back of a moving jeep for a few minutes while fighting off enemies" -> "such as opening a parachute on time, or holding position in the back of a jeep." (try shortening this again)
  • "Both the PlayStation and Game Boy Advance releases are the same game, with one exception: their multiplayer support. The Game Boy Advance version supports a two player mode, where players play co-operatively against a timer and try to get a high score, while the PlayStation version does not support any multiplayer." -> "Released for the PlayStation and Game Boy Advance, the GBA version also supports co-operative play where players compete against a timer to achieve a high score."
  • "These include a larger amount of levels" -> "The game also adds a larger amount of levels"
  • "The game also adds tank combat and a wider inventory of weapons, including knives." -> "The new weapon options include knives, as well as tank combat sequences."
  • link focus group
  • "The developers' largest improvement was lengthening the experience because of criticism of the first game's short length" -> "In response to criticism of the first game's short length, the developers strived to add more levels."
  • "It was announced at E3 2003 that L.S.P. had entered into an exclusive deal with North American publisher Hip Interactive to co-publish 16 L.S.P. developed games, and IGN highlighted Back to Hell as an anticipated release from the deal. Hip Interactive published the game a year later in North America in 2004." -> "At E3 2003, L.S.P. announced that North American publisher would co-publish 16 of their games, and CT Special Forces: Back to Hell was released in North America in 2004."
  • "noted possible improvements that they hoped to see in a sequel, including movement in on-foot sequences, a better story, and more combat upgrades" -> "but felt that the game series still needed improved movement and combat upgrades."
  • "Jeuxvideo's review of the PlayStation version noted that the lack of multiplayer in the release and the game's small amount of levels resulted in a short game, but that the game's cheap price would make purchasing it tempting for action game fans." -> "Reviewing the PlayStation version, Jeuxvideo criticized the game's short length and lack of multiplayer support, while noting that action game fans might be willing to try the game for its relatively low price."
  • "game's graphics" -> "game" (you talk about gameplay too)
  • "feeling that the game could have used the Game Boy Advance's shoulder buttons to allow easier aiming and that the game should have included the ability to crawl or flip the player character around" -> "feeling that the game needed improvements to aiming and movement."
  • "Jacques hoped that a sequel would fix the "limited maneuverability" of the game." -> you already basically say this and it can be dropped

  That's still a pretty decent list of improvements, but that will take us close to the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Made all of the changes you requested here, including the lead. Some notes:

  • Modified the sentence that uses "GBA version" above to define what GBA is per MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
  • Got rid of "strived to" in the adding more levels bit -- they did, so simplified it by cutting those words.
  • I kept Hip's name in there and also redlinked it -- could be a notable enough target for an article.
  • I emulated the Contra III example (it's so freeing to not have to include release dates in leads anymore, thanks for bringing me into the 21st century...), which was helpful -- thanks for bringing it up. I'm a bit concerned at the paucity of that second paragraph, but would love your thoughts.

  Again, thanks so much for all of the help here and for this review! Nomader (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  We are very close to being done. It's good that the lead example helped, and we can get it to GA with just a bit more work.

  • "CT Special Forces: Back to Hell is a run and gun video game developed and published by Light and Shadow Productions (L.S.P.) for the Game Boy Advance and by Wizarbox for the PlayStation. In North America, it was retitled to CT Special Forces 2: Back in the Trenches and was published by Hip Interactive." -> "CT Special Forces: Back to Hell is a run and gun video game developed and published by Light and Shadow Productions (L.S.P.) for the Game Boy Advance. Wizarbox re-published the release for the PlayStation, while Hip Interactive published a North American release under the title CT Special Forces 2: Back in the Trenches." (Better organization and flow.)
  • "The player controls a commando fighting an army of terrorists and completes missions by shooting enemies with a variety of weapons through side-scrolling run and gun gameplay with level-specific minigames." -> "The game is a side-scrolling run and gun shooter, with the player acting as a commando against an army of terrorists. Each mission is completed by defeating enemies with a variety of weapons, and finishing a level-specific minigame."
  • Even though it's short, maybe insert a paragraph break before the previous few sentences. It creates a stronger organization: release, design, reception
  • "jeep.." has two periods
  • "into developing" -> "into game development"
  • "In order to respond to criticisms" -> "After criticisms" (you use the "respond" language in the next sentence)

  That's it. The sources look like they check out and the formatting is otherwise solid. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all of these notes here. Made all of the changes listed above (also cut a line saying "It is the sequel the 2002 CT Special Forces" in the lead as we link to the predecessor in the reception area of the lead (was superfluous in my opinion). Let me know if you have further comments! Nomader (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  This looks great. Congratulations on getting this to Good Article status. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)