Wikipedia

Talk:Hollywood Monsters (video game)/GA1

< Talk:Hollywood Monsters (video game)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by JimmyBlackwing in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 11:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

By chance I happened to finish Dracula the same day you put this up, so I can't resist... JOEBRO64 11:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Haha, that works. Thanks for giving the article a look! I'll be looking forward to your review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Infobox and lede
  • For the infobox, "rerelease" does not need a hyphen.
  • "Assuming control of reporters Sue Bergman and Ron Ashman"... → "Controlling reporters Sue Bergman and Ron Ashman..."
  • Shouldn't the Invisible Man and the Mummy be linked to Griffin (The Invisible Man) and Imhotep (The Mummy) instead of their respective films? It doesn't make sense to link to the films since you're talking about the characters, and Dracula links to the character's article, not Dracula (1931 English-language film).
  • "Hollywood Monsters began development at Pendulo in mid-1994" should be changed to "Development began in mid-1994" or "Pendulo began developing Hollywood Monsters in mid-1994" or something similar. Games, as inanimate objects, can't "begin development."
  • I'd mention what year Igor came out in.
  • No other comments here, pretty well-written.
Gameplay
  • No comments.
Setting and story
  • "Wolf Man" should link to Larry Talbot, since you're talking about the character, not the film.
  • "... the game contains direct send-ups of famous films..." I'd modify this to remove "send-ups", as I think that's too informal for an encyclopedia.
Development
  • I wouldn't call "the developer" a misleading phrase there (the company is introduced as a "Spanish developer" in the previous sentence), but I changed it nonetheless. De-linked those instances as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Pendulo Studios began developing Hollywood Monsters on the same game engine..." Bin "Studios" since we've already introduced Pendulo. Also, I think "using the same game engine" would be better than "on the same game engine", as it'd be a bit clearer IMO.
  • Changed. Went with "with" instead of "on" for the second one, since "using" creates a noun plus -ing formulation that I still (even though Tony1 isn't as adamant about it anymore) try to avoid most of the time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • You don't have to do this if you disagree, but I think you should remove the part about the canceled Igor remake. It doesn't seem to have any relevance or add anything to readers' understanding of this game.
  • IMO you should replace "utilized" with "use", as (from the vibe I've gotten around Wikipedia) it's preferred to avoid forms of "utilize" since there are usually simpler alternatives.
  • "... the main theme for Hollywood Monsters, entitled 'Enigmas'."
  • I think the last two sentences of the third paragraph can be combined into one: "In 2002, La Unión similarly recalled that working on Hollywood Monsters had been "a very fun experience", and that it was pleased with the results of the collaboration."
Distribution and sales
  • I think you should reposition "In the end, the game was published in Spain by Dinamic during December 1997" as the first sentence of this section instead of the last sentence of the development section. It's more relevant here, since it's not necessarily related to the development.
  • "In 2000, Latiegui explained that the game "was released in the WORST moment in time for adventure games..." I know this is a direct quote, but MOS:CAPS still applies. I'd recommend using italics instead.
  • "The game was unreleased in English by 2003." Does this mean that the translation was complete, just not released? It's a bit confusing, and you've already mentioned that it wasn't localized.
  • "... including Hollywood Monsters, reached 1 million units." MOS:NUMERALS
  • "as part of its budget-priced "Premium" line in the middle of mid-2002."
Reception
  • This is not necessary, but there seems to be a vibe at WPVG these days that you don't need to name-drop all the individual reviewers since they're usually not independently notable. Most of their comments can be attributed to the publication with no problems.
  • Not really familiar with this. I've been attributing quotes to writers rather than publications since the 2000s, after the old standard (attributing quotes to publications) fell out of fashion in WPVG because inanimate sites and magazines can't technically "write" or "say" anything. Maybe it's drifting back the other way, but until there's a broad new consensus or guideline, I think I'm just going to keep going the way I've been going here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "... and noted Hollywood Monsters' technical superiority..." "Noted" should only be used when critics talk about an objective fact; this is an opinion.
  • Can you go into detail why it was compared to Maniac Mansion (e.g. was it a good or bad thing)? For instance, Meristation apparently thought it was better.
  • The direct quote from citation 43 (the Game One broadcast) is: "it has been compared to Maniac Mansion." That's stated by the narrator. Then Latiegui is filmed saying, "I was often told that it was the Spanish Maniac Mansion." Based on this, I'm not sure there's enough to say whether it was broadly positively or negatively compared to the game. That it was compared at all is still certainly part of Hollywood Monsters' reception, so I felt that it was important to add, but I'm not sure how far I should push it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Garcia and Melguizo similarly noted the voice acting as a high point." Again with "noted"
Legacy
  • "In 2001, GameLive PC declared Hollywood Monsters "without a doubt [one of] the two best graphic adventures" ever developed in Spain." Just curious—what was the other?
  • A bit more of italicizing for publications in this section
  • "... which started to form as an idea in summer 1998." MOS:SEASONS
  • The direct quote is: "In the summer of 98. That is when we started to create the first sketches of what would end up becoming Runaway." I'm not sure there's another way to write the date without potentially getting into original research. If you have any suggestions, I'm open. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Most of Pendulo's staff was were..." for concision; "staff" can be used as a plural noun like this.
  • I really wanted this option while writing the article—but unfortunately I'm an American and the article is written in American English. Words like "staff" and "team" are frustratingly singular over here, so a staff is always an "it" rather than a "they," and a "was" rather than a "were." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
References
  • No issues, all seem reliable.
Images

Sorry I took so long on this. Once these are cleared up I'll pass. JOEBRO64 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_Monsters_(video_game)/GA1&oldid=909338932"