Talk:Chaos Field/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm an avid fan of shoot 'em ups, so I will gladly look at this. I can already tell that the reception needs some work, but it isn't too bad. I'll provide comments soon. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm only doing a quick GAN, so it's easy. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 10:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: Was looking through the current GANs, and noticed that this review was started almost a month ago, with no activity on here since then. Do you still intend to review it or do you want to hand it over to somebody else?--Alexandra^IDV 18:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm currently neck-deep in work right now and forgot about this GAN completely. I'll be providing a review by at least Tuesday of this week. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish I was more busy on this GAN now. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 00:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm Aya Syameimaru! I'm still dealing with work, but I can at least leave you with some comments for now.

• Would start the lead with: "Chaos Field is a 2004 vertical-scrolling shooter arcade game developed by Milestone Inc." Would also link arcade game.
• I'm surprised the lead is so short. There's two paragraphs about the game's development, surely that could at least make the lead have two paragraphs?
• "because of the company's good reputation with shooting games" I'd replace the word "good" with something like "positive".
• Desiring to make a shooter of their own, development on Chaos Field began with the founding of MileStone in April 2003." This reads awkwardly to me. The game was being made the day Milestone was founded? Who is "they", Compile? Its employees? I'd just cut all of that out and say that Chaos Field was Milestone's first game.
• "According to sound and art designer Daisuke Nagata, the game experienced a troublesome development because too many people were involved and the team lacked organization." I'm not fond of the tone used for the last bit. It's better to phrase it like "the game experienced a trouble development cycle due to a lack of organization and the amount of employees involved."
• "The team decided to develop Chaos Field for Sega's NAOMI arcade platform since they were experienced with it and had a working relationship with Sega." This sentence is better for the first paragraph, and doesn't flow well. The way it's written makes it sound like the game had already been released before they made it for the NAOMI, which obviously isn't the case.
• The Reception is really short. A game with reviews from eight different publications shouldn't have a review section that small.

Despite my nitpicking, the article itself isn't that bad. There's some work to do, but nothing that prevents it from reaching GA in a timely manner. Ping me when you address all of these, or don't agree with some of them. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• • I tried to handle the issues in the Chaos Field article today, and I think it must be good. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 03:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, and those 8 reviews are all that we found. It's an obscure game, so it's no issue. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I striked out the comments lately. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 03:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
        • It's been over a month since this review started. You think all the problems are fixed? «=-iaspostb□x+=» 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Namcokid47, it's been almost week since I solved the issues with the Chaos Field article and is this GAN review finished? «=-iaspostb□x+=» 11:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm Aya Syameimaru!: It's close, but there's still some things left to iron out. Here's the rest of my comments.

• I'm not a fan of listing the publishers for each version of the game in the infobox, as it just feels like needless clutter. I would just leave the publisher of the arcade version instead of having four company names listed.
  • Done by someone else. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've never played this game before, so I think it's good to have a fresh pair of eyes look at the gameplay section. There are some things there that need to be clarified, as I don't understand what they are. What exactly is the "order field"?
  • I expanded it a bit. The details of how the weapons and scoring works in this game is honestly dumb and complicated, and since sources don't go into the details, it's probably best we shouldn't. I don't like using the manual as a source for this reason, but I added a couple lines to clear some points up. Also the "order field" is just normal gameplay and the "chaos field" basically makes it high stakes; you deal more damage, but the enemies fire more bullets. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• "lasers that lock onto enemies" - So a lock-on laser? I'd just shorten it to that.
  • Done by someone else TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• "Most of the staff originally joined Compile because of the company's positive reputation with shooting games like the Aleste series," - The sentence is already cited to the Edge article, so the second citation at the end of the comma there is unnecessary.
  • Done by someone else TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• "Development was funded by their publisher" - What was the publisher?
  • Able Corporation. Added. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm still not pleased with the reception. My problem is not about how many reviews there are (there's quite a few for a game this obscure), it's the lack of several of those actually being in the text. The Metacritic aggregator score isn't mentioned. Famitsu and Nintendo Power aren't mentioned either, yet they're listed in the infobox. What did they have to say about it? It's fine if you're unable to track down their reviews, but for a game with eight reviews from eight noteworthy publications, the short length of the section seems rather odd.
  • This is the only other item that needs work. I always have trouble with shooter reception because the commentary from critics is so...boring. There's just not much to comment on. @I'm Aya Syameimaru!: do you think you can try expanding the Reception section with more comments from reviews? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, the problem's not solved yet. I can think of that. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 23:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I edited it recently, the reception section's expanded now I believe. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• From that same section - "Several critics compared the game unfavorably to other shoot 'em ups such as the 2001 GameCube title Ikaruga". Ikaruga got its start as an arcade game and was later ported to GameCube. The sentence makes it sound like Ikaruga was a GameCube game originally which isn't true.
  • Reworded. My original intention with that sentence was to show that critics directly compared the game unfavorably to Ikaruga, since they were reviewing Chaos Field on GameCube and Ikaruga is the only other GameCube shooter (released outside Japan). Other editors changed it over time and it became misleading. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• The references should have links to the articles for the companies/publishers that are listed.
  • Done by another editor. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That's all I really have. By the way, please do not strike my comments. I've noticed you've done that on a few other GA/FA nomination pages, and it's rather rude and inappropriate to do. Please don't do that. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• This time I won't, I just un-striked your comments. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Namcokid47: A big thanks to I'm Aya Syameimaru! (talk · contribs) for giving it a try, but I don't think GA is achievable this time around. I've reviewed their additions to the reception section, and the new information added was either not criticism, was not supporting evidence of a critique, or was flat out mis-quoted information. I had to revert most of it. I would recommend failing the nom at this point, unfortunately. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @TarkusAB: I agree. Shooters in general are just hard to write about as most of them are fairly generic or there's not much meat to them. There's simply not enough here to warrant it being a GA right now. @I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Unfortunately I've decided to fail the article. Though I appreciate your work here and efforts to address my concerns, the reception is the real make-or-break to this and lots of it is just padding to make it look larger and/or misquoted information. You're welcome to nominate it again in the future if you can really get it into proper shape. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It was a nice try, I enjoyed the GAN well no matter the failure. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)