Talk:Crime Boss: Rockay City

Citation for kotaku article links incorrect URL

Citation for kotaku article links incorrect URL 75.34.27.196 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch. Not sure what happened there - I think Kotaku may have been trying out infinite scrolling at the time where if you read one article, it seamlessly shows another article next, but the URL doesn't necessarily update? Anyway, fixed. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible POV edit

Hey, was looking into this game and bumped into this while reading its Wikipedia entry. Is it likely this is POV and should be changed?

"Wesley LeBlanc of Game Informer was harsh, saying the gameplay was buggy and boring, and that the plot and characters were poorly written. He gave the game a mere 3/10 overall score."

Particularly the "was harsh" and "mere" bits. Doesn't read as neutral from the editor's standpoint, regardless of who this LeBlanc guy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.51.239.34 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a Reception section. That's the exact place to stick non-neutral comments. It's no less neutral than "Reviewer Jane C. said the game was amazing and gave it her game-of-2023 award." If you read the review, I'd argue that sentence is an accurate summary of said review. SnowFire (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't bother reading any of the reviews from gaming outlets, ended up watching some of the gameplay and passed on it. Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: Just realized you were the one who added the "mere" adjective (according the game's wiki edit history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_Boss%3A_Rockay_City&diff=1152098876&oldid=1129064011 ), so hopefully you didn't take it personally even though from where I'm standing it reads as if you're defending your point of view on why you made the edit. Particularly when taking this into account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyediting_reception_sections

1. • Don't make subjective claims in Wikipedia's voice. This is easy to do by mistake. For example, Many critics disliked the poor special effects presupposes that the special effects were poor, hence the criticism; rewrite as Many critics felt the special effects were poor, making it clear that this is in the opinion of the critics, not Wikipedia. Remember that the verb "note" should only be used to describe facts, not opinions: Smith noted that the frame rate is higher on Xbox is fine, but Smith noted that the game is better on Xbox is not.

(hopefully formatting works so it reads better, I'm just copy-pasting here)

IMHO adding the review was "harsh" and the "mere" score wasn't needed. To put it another way, the example you gave works fine to me given you'd be directly pointing to the Amazing score the game got and the Award thing. That's factual. Whereas the other two I'm pointing at are subjective opinions from the editor. Hopefully that makes sense.

179.51.239.34 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

hey @Masem, hope you don't mind me reaching out to you. Do you think what I wrote above to be POV? Should an edit be made within the Reception section for this game for the sake of neutrality? 179.51.239.34 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Belated: A) Of course I agree with my own edits. I wouldn't have made them if I didn't think they were correct and could be defended. B) To state again, it's a Reception section. Wikipedia should be neutral, yes, but that sometimes means neutrally portraying non-neutral opinions. It is a neutral fact that LeBlanc hated this game. Sorry. Maybe he's "wrong", but that's what he wrote. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)