Talk:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Seems this is my last chance if I want to review one of the original DK Country SNES games! FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The other two articles have quite a bit of text about the development of the music and audio, not many details here?
  • I'm afraid that there was literally nothing available on development for this game nor its predecessor. All of the retrospective interviews focused on the first game, and I've had to make do with what I have... 15:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Many of the gameplay elements from previous games" I'd add "previous games in the series", seems a bit vague now.
  • "may also pick one another other up" Seems something's wrong here...
  • Though it is obvious when knowing the previous games, it seems you should mention that you can switch between the two characters at will during a level...
  • "The game features "Animal Friends", which returns from its predecessors." Return, plural?
  • "Squaks the parrot" Squawks?
  • "one such kind of item is" I think "kind of" is redundant here.
  • Various characters are only linked at their second occurrence in the article body.
  • There are also some duplinks.
  • "Pre-rendered images are modelled as 3D objects and then transformed into 2D sprites" Seems this is a bit off, it would rather be pre-rendered 3D animation frames/images that are transformed into 2D sprites.
Being an animator myself, I think this could be shuffled a bit more... It now says "Pre-rendered images are modelled as 3D images", but the order is off here, as the only modelling involved is for the 3D models that are later animated. Then this animation is rendered into images (the "pre-rendered" images), that are turned into 2D sprites... So I'd say "Pre-rendered 3D animations are turned into 2D sprites" or some such. But what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
The source says "everything was modeled in 3D before being transformed into 2D sprites and background layers". I don't think the reviewer was well versed in the way this game was created, so I think I'll go with the "Pre-rendered 3D animations are turned into 2D sprites" suggestion. I myself am not well versed in how the process is done. If I recall correctly I think the designed each frame of a sprite in 3D, and then converted it into a 2D image that could fit on the SNES, therefore giving it an illusion of advanced graphics. JAGUAR  16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! sold over 3.5 million copies worldwide,[9] with 1.7 million copies sold in Japan and 1.12 million copies sold in the United States.[29][30]" Some of this is already mentioned in the former section, shouldn't it be moved there?
  • "of the 1994's Donkey Kong Country" Why the genitive s?
  • "not as "legendary" enough as it was" Seems "enough" doesn't fit well here.
  • "for replacing all of the original music." Replaced with what?
  • Shouldn't release dates be mentioned under release?
  • "It was also re-released for the Game Boy Advance in 2005. The game was made available to download on the Wii's Virtual Console service in 2007, as well as for the Wii U's Virtual Console in 2014." Shouldn't this info also be under release?

@FunkMonk: thanks for the review! I've addressed everything. It's unfortunate that there is literally nothing on development for this one, as I would have definitely mentioned it. Development sections are my favourite to write. I think Donkey Kong 64 is next, and I assume that has a lot more on development than this one! Please let me know if you have anything else. JAGUAR  15:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks good, I have a little more nitpicking on the rendering issue... FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@FunkMonk: I think I've cleared up the rendering issue by rephrasing it to your suggestion. The reviewer was a bit off, so I hope I've made it clearer? JAGUAR  16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply