Talk:Conan (2007 video game)/GA1

GA Review

Okay, let's take a look:

Lead

• "Its development was handled by Nihilistic Software who was" Probably needs a comma after "Software". I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't "was" be replaced with "were"?

  Unfortunately, American English dictates companies as singular entities per American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.

  Really? Thanks for informaing me about that.

• You need to disambiguate the God of War link.

  Done.

• "create an experience filled with blood, severed limbs, and topless maidens." If this was an actual quote, then it needs to be quoted. Otherwise, reword to fit the style of an encyclopaedia. Strange to go into specifics like this, especially in the lead.

  Reworded.

• "players can fight with sword and shield" "a". Please proofread before nominating.

  Eh, that is a proper sentence. Consider these.[1][2][3][4][5]

• "Magic powers complete the barbarian's arsenal" Srange choice of words here. Surely completion of the arsenal is dependent on if all the physical attacks are bought?

  Reworded.

• "players turn enemies into stone" Maye be more concise and sound more professional if Petrification is used instead.

  It is simpler to understand (it is needless to redirect readers to another page if simpler words can explicitly state the action), and I believe it is professional enough if Britannica and Encarta use such a phrase as well.[6][7]

• "burn them with fire from the heavens, and summon ravens to peck them to death." It sounds as if the writer has some sadistic fascination with these attacks. Need to rewrite to fit an encyclopaedic register. No need for such specifics in the lead, and the style of writing/description is unsuitable.

  Reworded.

• "killing powerful enemies, toppling stone pillars, or scrambling up cliffs." The first example is sufficient; the subsequent two are redundant.

  Reworded. Summarized the last two examples into one.

• "combat system and gory kills," Again. I won't pick ount any more examples—read through it all and reword such instances.

  I am uncertain what is the problem with this sentence. Is it with the adjective "gory"? I doubt it is an informal word, as it is used on Britannica[8][9] and university[10] sites.

  "gory kills". I'm just not comfortable with that one, although I'll put it down to personal preference.

• "On the audio side". What side? Reword to something like "regarding audio".

  Done.

• "as the barbarian" Replace with "Conan".

  Done.

• Should be a comprehensive summary; doesn't include plot, setting, and music.

  There is no requirement that a Lead should summarize everything in the article. It should be accessible, summarizing important points of the article (i.e. Gameplay, story, development, reception). The lead already states Nihilistic's replication of Frazetta's artsyle with its reception, and the same with Reagan's music. The only thing lacking is a a summarized plot, which I have just added.

  I did not say that it should summarise everything, only that it should be a comprehensive summary, per WP: Lead. I would think that "Setting " and "Music" are important points, but again, I guess it comes down to personal preference.

Gameplay

• "control the titular character from a view above his shoulders." May sound to strange to non-gamers. Could do with rewording.

  Reworded.

• "to the next area and encounter." Does not make sense to me, unless I'm missing something. My bad

  Ugh, I just reworded it. Nevermind... is this change for the better?

• "Besides combat, button-pressing sequences are used in knocking down pillars to create bridges and in pulling down walls to open up passageways." Two very repetitive and needless sentences.. May be better to establish the concept by saying that it's used to interact with the environment, and then state one example.

  Done.

• "one-handed, two-handed, and dual-wield." I'm assuming that the last means that two swords are used; this needs to be clarified, as it's in-game jargon.

  Reworded.

• "he activates his Song of Rage and increase the damage of his attacks for a short time." "Increases". If the proceeding text is explaining "Song of Rage", change "and" to ", which". Otherwise, it reads as if the jargon isn't explained.

  Done.

• "The game also allows players to kill enemies while on the defense." Who's on the defence, Conan or the enemies. Statement means nothing to people who haven't played the game. Needs clarification.

  Hmmm, that statement was from a previous working copy. Looks like it was left in. Removed and edited the following sentence.

• "Other methods to kill enemies include throwing them against other objects, such as spikes and other enemies, or over cliffs" Although nothing is technically wrong with this, it would be better if you actually state that Conan is intercating with the environment.

  This might be duplicative of the previous "interact with environment" statement. I think it is better to leave it as it is.

• "to hurt enemies". "Damage".

  Done.

• Generally, there is a persistance to use the rule of three whenever giving examples. This isn't necessary.
• "end fights in the players' favor" What, are we playing co-op now?

  Reworded.

Plot and setting

• "Stygia" Subject specific terminology must be explained or linked.

  "They showed Stygia as a land with Egyptian tomb-like structures and Barachan Isles as lushly jungled islands." The paragraph and this sentence has already established the context of fictional locales. I fail to see how Stygia must be Wiki-linked when it is already established as a fictional locale in Hyboria (which is already linked).

  Think of it from a non-Conan fan's view. These statements are absolutely meaningless because there is no concept of what these places are. Regardless, if articles exist on these subjects, I don't see why they shouldn't be linked.

  "Conan's developer, Nihilistic Software, chose several Hyborian locations described in Robert E. Howard's stories for the game's settings. Although Hyboria was set as a fictional version of Earth around 10,000 BC with fantasy elements, its civilizations were based on those from the Stone to Iron Ages. Nihilistic portrayed the African-like plains of Kush in the game as savannahs with villages of straw huts. Furthermore, they showed Stygia as a land with Egyptian tomb-like structures and Barachan Isles as lushly jungled islands."

  The first sentence established the context that the locations are fictional in the land of Hyboria (Wiki-linked). There are no specific articles for each Hyborian location since they lack notability on their own (most real-world information focus on Hyboria as a whole). All locations that is in the books only have a brief mention in the Hyborian Age article. It would be over-linking to keep pointing to the same article several times in the same paragraph when the context has been established that they are places in a fictional world.

  If they are insignificant as you say, then why identify them specifically. Again, I see no probelm with explanation or linking, otherwise the statements are meaningless. Again, if they are as insignificant as you say, then remove the specific names. Stygia (Conan) has its own, article by the way, although it probably should be merged. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Frank Frazetta's portraits of the barbarian have raised his profile in pop culture." Weird sentence. If you're going to keep it, at least give it a source.

  Done. Reworded and cited.

• "and let players experience an adventure as Conan." Yeah, well one would hope in a game called Conan. Sentence seems needless.

  Removed.

• I'm uncomfortable with this section, which is reading more like a psuedo-"Development" section. Rationales and processes should be touched on very briefly, and reserved for the actual "Development" section. You may want to think about taking some of this info there. Will contact Giggy about this to see what he thinks. I may be wrong.
  • It would make more sense to move some of the information about character creation (from a dev. perspective) to the development section, and thus leave this section more in-universe. giggy _(:O) 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    I disagree here. The intention is to provide character information in its subsection. Many articles spin out their character subsections into articles. These articles has to contain real-world information on the characters, to fulfill Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In line with this thought, when the articles are not substantial enough, the character articles are merged into the main article. Hence these real-world information are more pertinent to the characters in their subsection. It is pointless taking these and shoving it into the Development section if they fit in better in a character subsection.

    • It doesn't have to contain real-world information. "Characters" is a component of the story. Yet, when I look it, I'm getting little sense of what things are about in regards to in-universe information. The developers' thoughts and processes are usually reserved for "Development". So, I disagree; however, I know it would be a pain in the arse for you to remodel the article, so I'll let it go and see what happens when/if it's raised at FAC.

• "The developers stayed truer to the physical depictions of the barbarian." Such comments need a source, or will otherwise be viewed as original research/synthesis.

  Changed "truer" to "true".

  It is not OR when the previous statement describes the non-canonical use of magic, and subsequent statements after this talked about how Nihilistic (This statement was redundant and was removed but re-appeared in an edit conflict).

  • Regardless, that statement made a judgement about which was "more true" than the other. Even if it is an obvious, it would need a definitive source explicitly stating that this was the case. It would probably count as original synthesis, as conclusions are being made by the editors themselves from the source.

• "dismembering, disemboweling, and pulverizing them to send body parts flying across the screen" Again, watch out for your style of writing.

  Done. Toned down the excitement level.

• "it proves to be more than a match for" Watch out for informal phrasing.

  Done. Replaced "proves to be" with the mundane "was".

  I was talking about "more than a match"

  Replaced "more than a match" with "stronger".

• Plot section has no sense of a summary, and is too long. As I've said about countless other articles, the style is limited and will grow very large if it has this point-by-point stye. Large chunks of unnecessary detail

  I disagree. The first paragraph describes its inspiration and method of story-telling, and hence can be discounted. The plot is summarized as three paragraphs with 384 words. Not every detail was written, only the necessary information to show that the game features creatures from fantasy settings and what is necessary to hold a coherent plot that ties in with Howard's saga.

  You spend three sentences describing how Conan destroyed some monsters. These don't advance it in any way. It's punctuated with daft sentences like this: "Conan, however, refuses to let others wear his armor. They come to a compromise—they will find the armor together but Conan will wear it and help to end the curse."

  As stated, the monster-bits are a description of the game world, and a sequential summarisation of Conan's journey. These illustrate Nihilistic's efforts in staying true to Howard's world. The "daft" sentence has been reworded.

  One would think that's what "Setting" is for but never mind.

Development

• "was originally slated" Again with informal phrasing

  Done. Changed to "scheduled".

• The last parts of "Style of art" seem to contain original research, albeit subtley. I'd prefer a few more sources at the end.#

  Huh? The last three sentences are referenced in the source provided at the end. There is no original research.

  I didn't realise the ref was supporting all the preceding comments. However, after checking that source, it does not support the preceding comments. I really hope that this isn't a trend with the other refs. Need to replace source.

  Please read the source. I find it hard to believe that:

• "fog system that allowed layered control so middle-ground silhouettes could be created (something we noticed Frazetta would do in his paintings) rather than the usual near-ground = dark, far-ground = light model" does not correspond to "fog effects allowed the team to recreate Frazetta's use of shadows in the middle area of the image",
• or that "subtle character outlining to create the remains of a painter's 'blocked in' silhouette. [...] Essentially we tried to use the technology to create oil painter's artifacts and techniques" to "The character models were outlined with light colors instead of dark ones, yielding a subtle blending of the object and background found in oil paintings",
• or "the artists used darker color palettes, motifs, and themes to present a more serious mood, in line with the gore and nudity in the game" to "The obvious differences are things like imagery of gore, blood and nudity being fair game, but there are also subtle differences such as using what could be considered more "classic," sophisticated or darker (as in more serious mood) color palettes, motifs and themes. We generally went for things that are less 'fluffy and cotton candy-ish' and more 'edgy and meaty.'"

• We're looking at different things here. I'm looking at source 15, of which the information doesn't match the URL given.

  What the... crap... nice catch there. Although I do think you should have stated the source (stated as GameSpy) did not match the link (GameSpot). Replaced the link with the correct one.

  I think that's what was meant by "the information doesn't match the URL given". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Change passive to active where possible. eg "Mike Reagan was hired by THQ to write the music for Conan"->"THG hired Mike Reagen".

  Not totally a requirement as evidenced in FAs. The change to active is best if the article is written entirely in passive form, or the passive would render a questionable identity (e.g. "Mike was hired to write the script." without establishing the hirer's identity). It is to be avoided if it broke the flow of the sentences. In this case, I am trying to focus on Mike Reagan from the start.

• "Music" section is filled with unverified claims. Needs sources. I apologise if these are supported by the refs at the end of the paragraph.

  The entire paragraph has its references in the three sources at the end of the paragraph.

Reception

• "As of 2008, review aggregator sites Metacritic and Game Rankings selected 80-odd reviews and calculated average scores of 69 (out of 100) and 70% for the game, respectively" I find this to be pointless if the scores are given in the table.

  Removed.

• I'd say to watch generally for informal phrasing in this section
• "The most common and critical complaint of Conan was of it being a copycat of God of War." Very clumsy sentence. Needs rewording.

  Reworded.

• "Perlman has earned praises for his performance" Spunds strange—change "praises" to "acclaim".

  Done.

• "game's dialogue" The article uses American spelling throughout (yuk), so why use a British spelling here?

  Done.

• "the graphics composed of drab-looking environments". "Consisted of" "Comprised". Doesn't sound right—these are better alternatives.

  Done. Changed to "featured".

• "Despite the generally favorable reviews, Conan did not attain commercial success." As part of the whole reviews, 69& is favourable, but not in realtion to all the other games and reviews out there. Such reviews wouldn't warrant expectation of commercial success. I'm not sure about this, though.

  Added in the strength of the Conan franchise.

Sources

• There's date linking issues with ref 39

  Done.

A decent article, but there are problems with prose, and verifiability in some cases. Saying that, the "Reception" is well written and structured—nice to see something that isn't over reliant on quotes and not have pros and cons segregated, for a change. I'm placing this on hold. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done a partial addressing of the issues presented as I must go off on an appointment. I will address the rest later. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Left replies. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressed every section except the Lead for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More replies. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that it would be best for me to handle the Lead once everything in the main text has been settled. Jappalang (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I wiped some of your earlier restructuring as a result of an edit conflict.

Uh... the edit conflict did cause something. I had wiped a comment on "truer" (notice the unfinished statement) since I agree if held in comparison, it might be construed as OR. However, your edit conflict brought it back and I appreciate it if you judge the actions taken it as simply removing the comparison angle and holding Nihilistic's faithfulness to physical brutality on its own.

Would you consider issues with the main text resolved in that case, and we can proceed on to the Lead? Jappalang (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. On to the lead; I'll be up for the next 2-3 hours, so hopefully it should get passed tonight. Saying that, I am concerned about that source—I really going to have to assume good faith and hope that there are no more instances of this. Nice work with the amendments. You may think that I've been too pedantic, but I've assumed that this is going to FAC and I don't want it to get shot down there. Ahh, Germany scored; got to go;). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not consider these actions pedantic. In fact, I appreciate a valid and detailed critique of the article. You are right in that I do eye this for a possible FAC (but with a peer review beforehand), so you have taken the right action to be more critical than for a normal GA.

Sidenote: Lucky you, my TV feed froze some time in the second half, and I could not watch the three goals in the late stages. At least, I got some sleep. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA. Good luck with the FAC. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I still have to cross the "peer review" and "copyediting" hurdles before I can see the FAC line. Jappalang (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)