Talk:Digital Homicide Studios/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 09:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again, I can tell by first glance that the article's content matches far better than it did before. I will review this over the next few days.

Three things I immediately noticed:

1. per manual of stlye, I would move the background section to a level 2 header named "Company history" or sth., and the controversies under another level 2 header named "Controversies".
2. I agree that a list of all 61 games makes no sense, especially since most of them are really obscure. A list of games released on Steam would be feasible I guess, since all controversies relate to Steam in a way, even though you could convince me otherwise. As far as I am aware of, the other platforms they released on also included sites where people published as a hobby rather than as a profession, so these games shouldn't be relevant.
3. When you go into the company history, talk a little about the other controversial games. I recall Sterling and other outlets also wrote about other games like Tamper Tantrum, include that information here to show that they did other games then Slaughtering Grounds and that they were equally received.

Expect a full review very soon.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

DasallmächtigeJ, thanks for this initial review. #1 was easily completed. For #3, I was only able to find a review/playthrough of Galactic Hitman and added that. Temper Tantrum is not featured in any reliable sources apart from a name-drop in Vice. This name-drop (as well as a few others) is now included. As for #2, I don't there is a viable intersection without resorting to mass primary-sourcing or original research. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are some videos by Sterling and Game Star (among others), where they rip some other games, the question is, do they meet the reliability criteria? I would also presume that mentioning some of the games is sufficient...DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid citing Sterling directly as they are a non-neutral entity in this matter and might give undue weight. GameStar is reliable per WP:VG/RS so I might look into that tomorrow. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I found only one GameStar video covering Digital Homicide, though it does not discuss any game in depth. I added some new details per that video, though. IceWelder [✉] 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

Will take a look at writing etc. over the coming week.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Insert a paragraph after "succession"

   Done, though the resulting half-paragraph felt a bit short, so I added the number of games produced with a few examples. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mention that the company folded in 2016.

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are too many details about the lawsuit in the lead. I would only mention that Sterling heavily criticized the game, and that the Romines sought reparations, also against Steam users, which were dismissed/dropped. I would also remove for what they specifically sued and how high the reparations were supposed to be, all of this can be found in the controversies section.

   Done: I trimmed the details a bit, though I think that it should be mentioned that the Steam users were sued for harassment to retain some context. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

History

• I would just name the section "History", as it should contain the entire history, including when it folded. (cf. broad coverage)

   Done: I very briefly mentioned the lawsuits and their outcomes. I want to avoid the History section essentially copying the lead in this regard. Previously, all three sections were part of the History as the lawsuits played a major role in the company's reputation and ultimate demise. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is their age relevant?

  It is something I commonly include where such info is available in the sources I already use. Should I remove it? IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• You mention that he was a liquor salesman, as such not relevant. This information would gain more relevance if you would stress that he had no prior experience or academic/other qualification for programming video games. If available, also include that information for the other brother.

  I like to include backgrounds where such info is available. One could argue that a lack of experience is significant to mention here. Should I remove it? There is no such info available for James Romine as far as I know. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would remove their age, as it is not specifically relevant but keep the liquor salesman bit. However, stress that he had no prior experience in the video game industry. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ages removed, but I was unable to find a reliable source that, verbatim, says that neither of them had any VGdev experience. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• redirect personal computer to PC game instead.

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would stress that they used nom de plumes to avoid them being associated with their negative image.

   Done with attribution to Marcel Weber. This was likely the intent but I don't think that you can put this objectively. The lawsuit claims legal use of trade names. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Name drop some other horrible games in a sentence ("Other games released were a,b,c, who were also negatively received." or "Many of Digital Homicide Studios' games, such as a,b,c, were criticized as "amateurish, rushed and cobbled together from recycled assets".) The gamestar video lists quite a few of them at 0:48, so you could also inlcude them there. By doing so people can associate other stuff than Slaughtering Grounds, considering they sued for quite a few of their games.

   Done by moving up the sentence about the removed Steam games. The GameStar video shows, but does not really comment on, a screenshot of the company's Itch.io page. I'd rather use a few sources that purposely mention a few of the games briefly than an uncommented screenshot that shows many of them. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Will look at this during the week.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove "Squirty Play", the subtopic Sterling calls their videos is not relevant.

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• " Sterling's videos were among the most exposure the game received at the time, with one of them appearing as the second search result on Google Search and as the first on YouTube. The Slaughtering Grounds received no reviews indexed by the review aggregator website Metacritic.", merge both sentences with a linking word like "...Youtube, whereas it received..."

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The absense of Metacritic can also be used in company history. You could use it to indicate that the studio was so small and amateurish it largely flew under the radar.

  That's a stretch, really. Possibly WP:SYNTH. Some games are just not popular enough to be covered by the mainstream media. For example, Among Us did not have one review until September 2020, more than two years after release. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link assault, libel, slander, harassment, death threat, hate and harassment group, and all other specific law terms and allegations (in both sections), as most de jure terms differ from common word usage.

  I see, then we'll leave it at that.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the Skype call "awkward and contentious"?

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Representing himself in court was seen not only as unusual but extremely stupid at the time I vaguely remember. Maybe you can find a source on that...

  The pro se representation came with the expected unprofessionalism but I see no source with explicit problems arising from this. The only real issue, claiming damages on behalf of the company, is already listed. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  I vaguely remembered that I read sth. about it a few years back, but I don't even know if that source was reliable or not.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "filed a lawsuit against 100 anonymous Steam users, including eleven referenced by their pseudonyms" How did he file the other 89? Since this will be hard to find out, I would just write filed against 100 users... I'm assuming the 11 are the same referred to later, so no need to mention them twice.

  The lawsuit says "Jane/John Does 12 through 100"; I don't think any source mentions this, though. I reworded the section to only mention the "eleven users" once. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• In the last sentence, explicitly stress that this facilitated abuse towards the developer and thus enabled the lawsuit.

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Agree All sources check out and are reliable, they are also all archived, which is always a plus.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

• I see you gave more details on their other games, which is good.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• The history and the controversy sections should be treated as two separate entities. Maybe a reader just wants to inform themselves about one or the other. As such, the company history should also include a paragraph about the financial troubles due to the controversies, as well as the closing of the studio, so that the entire company history is available to the reader. (Sth. like "due to several controversies and lawsuits relating to xy, all games were removed from Steam, which eventually forced the company to close in the year xy.")--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  See above. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  The infobox states it folded in October 2016. I would add a small sentence stating that in the last paragraph of company history, so the exact date it went out of business is included.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  James Romine declared the company "destroyed" in October 2016. This is mentioned in both relevant sections. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Did violating the greenlight rules have any consequences for the studio?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not that I know of. Valve was never known for maintaining Greenlight well. The source makes no mention of consequences. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are there sources about the other platforms where the tried to publish their games on after the ban? If so, include them in the company history.

   Done. IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

Agree--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

Agree Yes, as the company has folded and all lawsuits are closed with prejudice.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated?

Agree The logo seems sufficient. You could think about adding a picture of Sterling or the Romines in the lawsuit section, but that's not a must.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any free imagery of either of the three people involved. It is unlikely that such imagery would come up for the Romines, for Sterling maybe in the future as they are still active publicly. IceWelder [✉] 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

 Passed The article meets all criteria now and contains all relevant information on the topic. Good work!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)