Talk:Crystal Dynamics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be an interesting one. Thanks for taking this topic on. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a dense one, so it may take some. A lot of my initial comments are about the overall organization and level of detail.

• The first half of the first paragraph needs a lot of work. It's possible that all these details and names are truly important, but right now I'm not seeing it. It may be best to just radically cut the level of detail, particularly all the names and individual bios. But if you had hesitations around removing those, I would suggest getting the main point out earlier (these people founded Crystal Dynamics as a spinoff of 3DO), and providing additional detail later (here are why these individuals are important). A "further reading" link may useful here, if people are trying to learn more about the history of the 3DO.

I trimmed this a bit. I do want to emphasize what the three founders did previously, especially how Morse's establishment of New Technology Group led to the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, which led to The 3DO Company, which led to Crystal Dynamics. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "On July 8, 1992, Canepa, Lange, and Morse spun off the game development portion of The 3DO Company as Crystal Dynamics." -> as an outside reader, it feels like the article really starts here.

I get what you mean, but I'm trying to keep the prose as chronological as possible while also briefly mentioning crucial background elements. Stating that Crystal Dynamics is a spin-off of The 3DO Company and only then going about what The 3DO Company actually is feels odd. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Crystal Dynamics started out simultaneously developing Crash 'n Burn and Total Eclipse, which were announced for the then-upcoming 3DO in April 1993." -> "The studio's first two projects were Crash 'n Burn and Total Eclipse, announced as launch titles for the upcoming 3DO, in April 1993."

 Done, though I kept the part that they made two games at once. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• " In June 1993, Strauss Zelnick resigned as president and CEO of 20th Century Fox to become the president and CEO of the nascent studio" -> I recommend reversing the order of operations here, as starting with his resignation from Fox sort of buries the point.

 Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "He acquired between 25% and 50% of the company" -> for clarification, does this mean he personally invested in it? There's some additional information about investors later in this paragraph, and it seems like a good opportunity to organize this information together.

 Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• " Lange, who had acted as Crystal Dynamics' president, stated that he had been hired for his business expertise, whereas the creative expertise was already present at the studio, which had twenty-eight developers at that time." -> this sentence feels out of context with the sentence before it and after it. Does it need more clarification, or should it go earlier in the article, when they were still CEO?

"he" refers to Zelnick. Rephrased for clarification. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• " While Home Box Office's price was not disclosed," -> i think you can scrap this, as the estimate implies that an exact number is not known

I was thinking the same; good to have this opinion seconded. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• " was in the process of setting up the company " -> could all this detail be reduced to a single word?

 Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I understand trying to keep things chronological, but I think the story is lost when the company is scrapped at the end of a much longer paragraph. Consider splitting the paragraphs between the business and the game production. You can maintain the timeline using words like "meanwhile".

The idea was to have one paragraph solely for Star Interactive, especially since the hiring of Toys for Bob seems to have been a result of this. I trimmed it a bit to hopefully address the loss of focus. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite Zelnick steering Crystal Dynamics away from relying solely on the 3DO and the company becoming the first licensed third-party developer for the PlayStation, the 3DO's poor commercial performance had a significant impact on the company." -> "Under Zelnick, Crystal Dynamics also became the first licensed third-party developer for the PlayStation, to diversify its business away from the struggling 3DO. However, the 3DO's poor commercial performance had a significant impact on the company."

 Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "In September, Zelnick was announced as the new manager for BMG's North American operations. He would join the company in January 1995 while remaining a director and shareholder in Crystal Dynamics." -> "In January 1995, Zelnick left the CEO position to manage BMG's North American operations, remaining as a director and shareholder in Crystal Dynamics."

The announcement prior to its execution ties into the acquisition attempts. I shuffled it around a bit.

Let's pause there. I know that's a lot, and you're taking on a challenging and important subject. If you're willing to work at this, this can still reach GA quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you already, @Shooterwalker! Third article of mine you've reviewed in the past few weeks. Impeccable timing as well; you published this just as I was boarding my plane home. I've made some changes to the affected section. See also my comments above. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I've been thinking about merging List of Crystal Dynamics video games here. Despite being a FL (promoted in 2013), it is in a pretty rough state and a significantly reduced variant could fit well here. What do you think? IceWelder [✉] 10:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I could go either way on the list. I tend to be a mergist for organization sake, but I can see why a featured list might warrant its own article. Let's keep going.

Gex...

• The context here might be that other consoles had mascots. Seems like something that should be mentioned, to explain their reasons for doing so.
• "despite the 3DO's limitations" -> this is a little confusing and could be dropped. Not clear what it has to do with the vertical platforming elements.
• " Crystal Dynamics' publishing arm released " -> " Crystal Dynamics published"
• "and it was working with" -> "and began working with" or "while also working with"
• "The latter game was already expansive in content but lacked structure, wherefore Crystal Dynamics brought Amy Hennig onto the project to help make the game more engaging." -> "The latter project began to lose focus as it grew in scope, so the publisher assigned Amy Hennig to make the game more engaging."
• "by 1996" could be a good paragraph break
• " The company had raised capital through Technology Partners, and that company's general partner Ted Ardell announced a reorganization of the studio in June 1996: Of its 102 employees, a third would be laid off over the course of three months, while Komisar, Canepa, and Eastburn would be ousted and Ardell installed as CEO" -> "By June, the company revealed plans for a reorganization. The studio would get Ted Ardell as a new CEO, coming from his role as the general partner at Technology Partners, one of their main investors. Komisar, Canepa, and Eastburn would be ousted, while also laying off third of the company's 102 employees."
• "Ardell managed the day-to-day operations while Crystal Dynamics lacked a president until Rob Dyer was promoted to this position in April 1997" -> " Ardell managed the day-to-day operations, and the studio lacked a president until Rob Dyer was promoted to this position in April 1997"
• " Bruce Straley, a designer on Enter the Gecko, was offered to direct the third game but chose to join his friends at Naughty Dog instead." " Bruce Straley, a designer on Enter the Gecko, was offered the director role for the third game, but he chose to join his friends at Naughty Dog instead."
• " consluting" -> minor typo
• "Following losses of $1.5 million in its 1997" -> this is a good place for a paragraph break. it's a major event, and a new paragraph signals this kind of break. It's arguable that this could even be the start of the next section.

We'll keep chipping away at this one. Thanks again for your work. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seeing how you're doing with this one. I know this is a complex article so take your time with it. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: It seems I forgot to reply here, but I already incorporated your newest comments last week. IceWelder [✉] 06:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's my misunderstanding. Thanks for that, and we can keep going.

• Projects under Eidos...
• "Crystal Dynamics' early releases under Eidos included Mad Dash Racing and Whiplash. " -> try to rephrase this to give a sense of the timing, if not exact years.
• "The publisher also sought the company to create a first-person shooter with a sci-fi setting, similar to the Deus Ex series of games. During this game's development, Eidos mandated the game to be part of the series, giving it the name Deus Ex: Clan Wars." -> it feels redundant to say that they wanted to create something similar to Deus Ex, and then say it will be part of the series. Try rephrasing as one shorter sentence.
• "the sister studio" -> this is unclear. I'm guessing this is another Eidos studio? That would be a clearer phrasing.
• "Around this time, the sister studio Core Design was completing its work Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness, its sixth game in the Tomb Raider series within seven years. Many developers at Crystal Dynamics were disappointed with the game's poor final state, which artist Daniel Cabuco believed came from fatigue for Tomb Raider games at Core Design. The Angel of Darkness was a commercial failure upon its 2003 release, and Eidos consequently assigned the series to Crystal Dynamics." -> I feel like this spends a little too much time on an outside studio, and could be rephrased in a tighter way. For example, "Meanwhile, Crystal Dynamics published Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness in 2003 as a commercial (and critical?) failure, leading them to reassign the series from Core Design to Crystal Dynamics."
• "Hennig" -> it's worth refreshing who this is and what their role was
• "its first Tomb Raider game" -> this is implied and can be cut, for better flow
• "They worked with Toby Gard, one of the series' creators, on insight into intents behind certain scenes and concepts that could not have been realized originally. " -> "They worked with Toby Gard, one of the series' creators, to understand the intentions behind scenes that had not been fully executed in the original game."
• " Certain aspects of the new gameplay, which was principally based on that of Legend, did not translate well to parts of the original game's design, leading to several adjustments that deviated from the original. " -> "Legend had inspired much of the new gameplay, which forced the studio to deviate from the original game where the new design did not easily fit."
• " in favor of another Tomb Raider game" -> unless this is yet another Tomb Raider game, it's implied that this means Underworld. You can just cut this part.
• " the Crystal Dynamics' head of studio, " -> "the new studio head"

We can pause there. I might encourage you to organize the next section around their time under Square Enix. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Remembering to reply this time, I've handled your latest batch and am looking forward to the next. Thanks for all your comments so far. As for organizing the next section around Square Enix, I believe it already is -- only the final four sentences are about it being under Embracer, which likely is not worth splitting into a separate section (yet). IceWelder [✉] 10:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We're almost done a first pass. I guess the last section is organized that way already. Just that the title is oriented around more Tomb Raider, and it's also pretty long. Something like "Under Square and Embracer" might be more to the point.

• Consider starting the new section with the acquisition by Square, moving the last sentence of the previous section.
• Is there any additional context for that acquisition? Were they looking to be acquired? Did Square come knocking because they liked something they had? Was it more that Square was interested in Eidos, and Crystal Dynamics was just part of the deal?
• "For the next Tomb Raider game, Crystal Dynamics intended to reboot the series with new concepts to reach new audiences." -> "Crystal Dynamics continued to work on the Tomb Raider series, with intentions to reboot the series for new audiences."
• "For several years, the development team experimented with several gameplay concepts but felt that many of them deviated too strongly from the series's core concepts and shifted to focusing only on elements that felt like a good fit for the series. The final design was characterized as a modernized take on the series, with a focus on survival and storytelling. " -> "Over several years, they discarded many concepts that would have drastically changed the gameplay, before deciding on a modern story-driven game with survival elements."
• "The story was planned to be told over three games, beginning with a new origin story." -> "The creative directors devised it as the beginning of a new origin story that was then planned out over three games."
• "To sustain the franchise in the meantime, Crystal Dynamics developed Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, which featured the same protagonist with different gameplay." -> "In the meantime, Crystal Dynamics sustained the franchise with the 2010 release of Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, a spinoff featuring new gameplay."
• "The studio followed up Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light with Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris in 2014 and Tomb Raider with Rise of the Tomb Raider in 2015." -> I know this fits comfortably in one sentence, but I think it would be more organized to draw a clearer distinction between the main series and the spinoff series. Two sentences is actually the better choice here.
• "However, the development team soon felt unhappy that, despite employing several player characters, only one of them was playable at a time and the impression that the Avengers were a team was not well represented. This led them to refocus it into a multiplayer game." -> "However, the studio found that playing one character at a time failed to capture the team dynamic of the Avengers, leading them to refocus the project on multiplayer gameplay."
• " Crystal Dynamics partnered with The Initiative, a studio founded by Gallagher, in September 2021 to work on Perfect Dark, a reboot of the series of the same name." -> "Later that year, Crystal Dynamics began work on a reboot of the Perfect Dark series, partnering with The Initiative due to the studio's history under Gallagher."
• I think the Embracer group thing is significant enough to become its own paragraph. It gets lost in the middle of a large paragraph.
• " expressed interest in sequels, remakes, and remasters in the studio's established franchises" -> "expressed interest in continuing the studio's established franchises"

That more or less completes the first pass. We can circle back for the lead, and look for how the article reads altogether. There should be some tweaks on the way, but we're getting close to good article status for sure. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I reworded the Perfect Dark piece a bit from your suggestion because the project was already in development (for at least a year) when CD joined. I also retained the bit about remakes and remasters, since this is something the studio had previously not dabbled in. I added the recently (September 2023) announced Tomb Raider I-III Remastered as an example. While investigating why Square Enix bought and sold and the studio, I also found a few extra sources that I added to the article with the same bulk. IceWelder [✉] 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My quick thoughts, not having read the entire review above.

• Infobox: Listing Gex under Products now seems a bit confusing because that appears to still be at Square Enix, although maybe overthinking here.
• Lead seems a bit lengthy. "while handing the third Tomb Raider game [...] to Eidos", exaggerating a bit considering they collaborated on the game.
• Headings are bit bulky, suggestions:
  • Background and early years -> Background and founding
  • Gex, Legacy of Kain, and acquisition by Eidos Interactive -> Multi-playform games, and acquisition by Eidos Interactive
  • Transition to Tomb Raider -> Developing the Tomb Raider series (although that still doesn't mention Snowblind)
  • Tomb Raider reboot series and Marvel's Avengers -> Rebooting the Tomb Raider series and developing Marvel's Avengers (still lengthy)
• Some platforms columns could be merge, not sure what's standard.
• 7 navigation boxes seems a bit excessive?

IgelRM (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

CD developed all Gex games, so I see no issue with its infobox listing that series. Who owns it at the moment seems irrelelvant. A lead of ~350 words seems apt for an article of more than 2,500 words; it's a summary, after all. Not a big fan of the proposed section names; they are usually longer but less informative. Platform rows are usually not merged (and I was specifically advised against it on older GA/FAs). I trimmed navboxes per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. IceWelder [✉] 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for considering and navbox trimming. Although the "handing to" in lead definitely needs consideration and "Transition to Tomb Raider" feels overstating, actually my heading is longer in this case. I think I view headings different when the lead already contains more information.

Edit: By the way seeing the CDE navbox move, Embracer now uses "Crystal Dynamics - Eidos" for the "operative group" name and no longer as headquartered in London.IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I generally consider head and body separate, and I think "Developing the Tomb Raider series" suggest that they created it. Maybe Shooterwalker can weigh in on section titles.

As for the operating group, CDE Entertainment Ltd. is the operating entity, seen for example here. (It has a logo, too.) Per Phil Rogers, the name seems to be a placeholder, but the company is in London. Embracer does quite a few shenanigans with its website, so I would leave the name as is for now. If there are ever more concrete sources, we can always change it later. IceWelder [✉] 21:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we can give the sections some more thought.

Lead

• "Madeline Canepa, Judy Lange, and Dave Morse founded Crystal Dynamics in July 1992 as a spin-off of The 3DO Company and soon hired Strauss Zelnick as its president and chief executive officer (CEO). The studio initially developed games for The 3DO Company's 3DO Interactive Multiplayer system." -> "The company was founded in 1992 as a spinoff studio from The 3DO Company, focusing on development for the 3DO console. Industry veterans Madeline Canepa, Judy Lange, and Dave Morse were its founding directors, who later hired Strauss Zelnick as president and chief executive officer (CEO)."
• The early years are dense with a lot of people rotating in and out. I might try a shorter version:

  "Its first, Crash 'n Burn, was packed in with the system in October 1993. Lange left in 1994, following a failed attempt at establishing the studio as a third-party publisher, and Zelnick was hired away in 1995. Between 1995 and 1996, Crystal Dynamics created Gex and published Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, which it later expanded into franchises. As the company faced financial struggles, it raised capital through Technology Partners, with its general partner Ted Ardell instituting layoffs of a third of the studio's staff, including Canepa. As the issues persisted through 1997, Crystal Dynamics was acquired by the British publisher Eidos Interactive in November 1998." -> "As the 3DO struggled to find an audience, Crystal Dynamics was forced to develop and publish for multiple platforms, starting with the first Gex game and Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain. Meanwhile, Lange and Zelnick left the company as it faced financial struggles, culminating in a layoffs, new leadership, and new investors. The issues persisted until the company was acquired by British publisher Eidos Interactive in November 1998."

• "Under its new owner, the studio created projects like Project: Snowblind, initially to be a part of the Deus Ex series, and it was put in charge of the Tomb Raider series in 2003 to replace Core Design." -> "Under new ownership, the studio created Mad Dash Racing, Whiplash, and Project Snowblind, leading Eidos to ask them to take over development of Tomb Raider."
• "During this time" -> "in 2009" is sufficient, and clearer.
• "After the first two games in the new trilogy, Tomb Raider (2013) and Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015), Crystal Dynamics developed Marvel's Avengers while handing the third Tomb Raider game, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, to the sister studio Eidos-Montréal." -> "They developed the first two games in a reboot trilogy with Tomb Raider (2013) and Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015), before shifting to a support role on Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018). After releasing Marvel's Avengers (2020), the company was purchased by Embracer Group as part of an asset sale from Square Enix."
• The remaining details feel like they might be too much for a lead. But if you feel as though we've lost too much in my suggested edits, you could identify a couple key points that could go back in.

Organization

• Good call on giving the Embracer group its own section. It's short, but long and distinct enough to make sense on its own.
• Consider changing the title of the 2009-2021 section, to emphasize the importance of the Square acquisition.
• The lead still feels a little cluttered. There's a lot of background about the founders, and the section feels like it really starts with "On July 8, 1992, Canepa, Lange, and Morse spun off the game development portion of The 3DO Company as Crystal Dynamics." I might suggest giving the background of the founders their own section, or at least their own paragraph. It allows the history section to start at the beginning of the story.

Body

• "same positions" -> "same role"
• "The studio partnered with Matsushita Electric, the manufacturer of the 3DO, in December 1994 to have its 3DO games distributed through 10,000 consumer electronics stores." -> "In December 1994, the studio partnered with 3DO manufacturer Matsushita Electric, enabling their 3DO games to be distributed through 10,000 consumer electronics stores."
• " Looking to come up with a mascot character for itself, as several video game companies had at the time, the studio sought after an animal that was generally liked and had interesting abilities. The result was Gex, an anthropomorphic gecko introduced with the game of the same name in 1995" -> "Crystal Dynamics sought to emulate other game companies by designing their own animal mascot, resulting in the 1995 game Gex, featuring an anthropomorphic gecko of the same name."
• "Using Legend as the gameplay basis forced the studio to deviate from the original game where the new design did not easily fit." -> "The studio had difficulty adapting the original Tomb Raider to the game design used in Legend."
• " Around the time of Underworld's development, one team within the studio sought to establish a new intellectual property. They pitched Downfall, a post-apocalyptic, open-world game set in San Francisco." -> "During this time, a team within the studio pitched a new intellectual property called Downfall, a post-apocalyptic open world game set in San Francisco."
• " However, working on two large projects at the same time was considered too ambitious, leading to Downfall's cancelation in favor of Tomb Raider" -> the passive voice obscures who made the call. Was it Eidos, or was it Crystal Dynamics themselves? Try to use active voice.

I feel like the article is very close to GA at this point. That should cover the last major things, and we can look one more time for some copy edits. Thanks for your patience and hard work. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: I took another stab at the lead, revising and shortening it while leaving out all leadership changes because there are simply too many to adequately summarize. While I did take over some of your wordings, it seemed that others potentially introduced factual errors (like Zelnick and Lange leaving due to financial turmoil). Body changes were made almost verbatim, although I had to rephrase the Legend–Anniversary line to bring it closer to what it said originally: The design of 1996 Tomb Raider clashed with the gameplay of Legend, so the former was adapted to the latter. The Noclip documentary doesn't give off the impression that there was any particular difficulty.

As for the History introduction, I reworded it to suit your request that the date and circumstance of the formation come first. This works in the current setup mostly because the remainder of the background was previously trimmed so heavily. I feel like having a separate background section for what would effectively amount to three or four sentences (maybe six if I restore all prior information) would look and read poorly. So, even though the result is fine, I can't say that I'm entirely happy with it since it deviates from how I tend to write my introductions (the Rockstar San Diego FA being a prime example). I'll leave it as it is for now, but maybe it will come up again should I chooseto nominate for FA in the future. IceWelder [✉] 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hope I'm not intruding but my suggestions: Would a Main|The 3D Company help with the background section? For the lead, I feel the 2022 satellite paragraph can be removed for recent-ism and Zelnick could be re-add for that. @Shooterwalker: I think acquisition by Square Enix suggests too much that the studio was specifically bought, maybe "Part of Square Enix"? I still don't like the "Transition" heading because isn't every new game a transition? IgelRM (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see a separate section for the background as it would be less than a full paragraph, plus I don't want to artifically WP:COATRACK the article with events that did not contribute or lead up to Crystal Dynamics's founding. As I said above, the current format is acceptable for GA, even if not perfect. Regarding the last lead paragraph, I think many readers take to Wikipedia to learn about a company's active dealings. For a company of this size, it is easy to summarize in 2-3 sentence, so I think it's inclusion in the lead is justified.

As for the section headers, I agree that "Acquisition by" may be slightly misleading, even if the lead and the section's first paragraph give the greater context. I reworded it to "Tomb Raider reboot trilogy under Square Enix" -- what do you think? On the other hand, "Transition to Tomb Raider" is, in my opinion, more than apt since Crystal Dynamics did not do any Tomb Raider until 2003 and has almost exclusively worked on the series since. The studio transitioned completely onto that franchise. IceWelder [✉] 14:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is good. I do have a preference for finding a better way to cover the part about the founders' prior history (and might even suggest trimming it). But what you have isn't wrong, and it's improved in a lot of ways since we started.

I know it's been a lot of work so far, and I think this is close to the finish line. I'm going to give it one more quick review for any lingering issues.

Lead

• "It soon became the first licensed developer for the PlayStation, " -> this phrase really makes the rest of the sentence run on. I'd either make it a short sentence with a full stop (.) or just cut it. (As a stretch, you could expand it into its own sentence about the business changing focus.)
• I'm not sure the satellite studios are important enough for the lead, and that could be trimmed.

Body

• "In return for the former, " -> I think you can cut this as it's implied
• "Transition to Tomb Raider" -> "Transition to Tomb Raider for Eidos" or similar. I know it risks being redundant, but it's good for the section titles to have maximum clarity.
• "Developers at Crystal Dynamics believed the game to be in a poor final state, and it became a commercial failure upon its release in 2003. " -> "Released as a commercial failure failure in 2003, developers at Crystal Dynamics believed the game to be in a poor final state." (this probably gets the order right)
• "in favor of Tomb Raider" -> trim this. It's clear from the sentence before and after that Tomb Raider was the focus.
• " in the development of Perfect Dark, a reboot of the eponymous series." -> "in developing a reboot of the Perfect Dark series" (and link reboot to the game, and Perfect Dark series to the series)

I gave the sources and the infobox one more good look. I'm gonna go ahead and give this a GA pass even with those minor notes, which can help improve the article further. You should consider a FA when the time comes. Great work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a wild few weeks and I'm glad we got this article to where it stands today. Once the rewrite of List of Crystal Dynamics video games is done, I will definitely look into FAC'ing this. IceWelder [✉] 08:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)