Talk:Development of Deus Ex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a stab at this. Expect a input in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Generally fine. Just some minor points that need addressing.

• "Their text editor would let players could take notes in-game as well." - Poor grammar here.
• "He also felt that matrix management structure under which the Dallas art team worked for the project but were not the project's staff hurt the game's progress." - Perhaps "that the matrix management" would work better.
• "The game was designed to be "genre-busting"—partly simulation, role-playing game, first-person shooter, and adventure.[5] It's an "immersive simulation" (similar to Ultima Underworld[4]) in that there are no reminders of being in a game, such as interface or backstory.[5] Spector described the player's role-playing in player-character decision-making as developing a "unique alter ego" built from the ramifications of their unique gameplay choices.[5] The game is from the first-person perspective and includes shooting, but there are other non-violent gameplay options. And like an adventure game, Deux Ex is primarily based on a linear narrative story and item collection, though its puzzles are open-ended with many possible solutions and consequences. Ion Storm viewed the game as about "player expression" rather than themselves appearing "clever".[5] They treated the player as a "collaborator" and sought to empower to "make choices and ... deal with the consequences".[5]" - This whole paragraph doesn't read very well: when read out, it sounds more like pieces of promotional material strung together.

That's all I can see there. Fix those issues and it should be okay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake, thanks for the review. Look good now? czar ♔ 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I think this can be considered a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)