Talk:Killer Instinct Gold/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The review should come soon. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

Lead

• "The game is set in locations including a spaceship and the jungle with characters including a gargoyle, ninja, and femme fatale." – "including" repetition
• "including a spaceship and the jungle" – why "the" instead of "a" jungle?
• "a gargoyle, ninja, and femme fatale" – may be misinterpreted(?) as if the game featured "a gargoyle, ninja, and femme fatale" character (i.e. a character that is a gargoyle with ninja powers and femme fatale characteristic)
• "but noted that the character animations were not as sharp." – "noted" should not be used, per WP:SAY
• "Following the success of the original game for the Super Nintendo home console, Rare began a sequel for the same console but transitioned development to the Nintendo 64 upon its announcement." – it is a bit unclear here what is the "original" (the original in the series [i.e. KI 1] or the original upon Gold was based on [i.e. KI 2]) and what's the "sequel" (KI 2 or Gold). The previous sentence leads me to think that the "original" is KI 1 and the "sequel" is KI 2, right? But then we have "Gold was scheduled as a launch title for the console", which leads me to assume that the sequel was actually referring to Gold. Not sure if it's just me but I preferred to bring my doubt here.
• "Reviewers did not like the game's emphasis on racking up combos over more strategic gameplay" – "rack up" is not the best option, per WP:IDIOM
• "IGN reported that even fans were upset by changes in the combo system and Rare's exclusion of several original and beloved characters." – the "beloved" sounds a bit impartial (I know it's from the source but it seems it is Wikipedia opinion) and the "original" is ambiguous as I pointed above but also because it could sound as "inventive" instead of "from the original game" (if you read "original and beloved" it seems to imply that).

Gameplay

• "Players fight with a Street Fighter II-style six-button setup—three punch buttons and three kick buttons—though Killer Instinct has a faster, more aggressive pace and places less emphasis on patience and mastery, similar to Mortal Kombat" – how the references to other games will help a lay reader?
• "which include a spaceship, the jungle, and a castle" – the same question I did for the lead.
• I understand the difficult to include it elsewhere but the soundtrack and voiceover stuff doesn't seem to be gameplay

Development

• "Their Killer Instinct series was their version of Mortal Kombat for Nintendo." – in my opinion, it seems NWR approach on it. Other sources say the same? Rare declared it was its intention?
• From "Rare had begun development on a sequel..." onwards I have the same problem I had with lead: I really don't know if the "sequel" refers to K1 2 or Gold.
• "It released elsewhere next year on May 9, 1997" – I'm not sure if UK and Australia is "elsewhere" or "worlwide" (as the lead says). IGN source that is backing up it doesn't say the game wasn't released in other countries. And it should be "It was released"(?)
• "The arcade version used an animation to give the illusion of the camera panning horizontally, but the console version used static image files with less detail" - This is misleading as the N64 version featured a full 3d background. The textures could be static because it was a full 3d model 31.49.81.244 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• "though he and Ed Lomas (CVG) found that the game noticeably lost animation frames in comparison" – it's citing IGN twice
• "But while GameSpot wrote..." – avoid personifying it; it was their staff who wrote
• "AllGame said that..." – avoid personifying it; it was Williamson who said.
• Look for more personification
• "The magazine also noted how..." – in addition of personifying, it is ambiguous because GamePro is also a magazine
• "...the game had sunk from a celebrated announcement to a quiet European release." – "sunk" seems informal and I'm not sure on Wikipedia guidelines on metaphors
• "GameSpot considered the graphics "near perfect" apart from the animation–background inconsistency" – personifying and though not really a problem I'd suggesting rewriting "the animation–background inconsistency" to something like "the inconsistent-animated background" or "some inconsistencies on the background animation"
• " Lomas (CVG) really liked the training mode, which he also liked" – a bit repetitive
• "combo button combination"
• "N64 Magazine said the game did not stand out..." – per WP:IDIOM, "stand out" should be avoided
• "...and had a lifespan of 'weeks rather than months'" – maybe you can paraphrase it; it's not an outstanding quote
• "and the series was revived for the Xbox One" – a year would be good here

Conclusion

Overall, it's very good. The are problems of clarity regarding the use of "original" and "sequel" and some personification of the sources. Other than that, only minor technical or wording details. Nice job, czar! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji, that was fast! Usually I have some more time to clean it up. Anyway, changes made. Take a look? Some responses: "noted" should be fine in its context, as the reviewers did "note" it. I'd change it if it made their statement presumptive or non-neutral. Upgraded sound should be part of the comparison between KI2 and KIG gameplay. (That is, sound is part of the gameplay experience.) I think the NWR claim on the MK/KI comparison is fine unless there's a source that says otherwise. When a review is coming as an outlet's definitive review, I don't think there is an issue with using the outlet as a metonym. For GameSpot in particular, it was written by their "staff" so there is no single author. Thanks for the review! (And for the ping—I'm not getting GA notifs for some reason.) – czar 05:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, czar. Both your edits or reasonings for not doing an edit are fine (especially the part about the sound; I should have thought about it hehe). So, I've just passed it. (Only a last thing: is "a spaceship, jungle, and castle" okay? I mean, I usually expect it to be written as "a spaceship, a jungle, and a castle" when those are different things [I'm not sure because I'm not a native but again I prefer to bring it here].) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! My understanding of parallelism is that it has to be consistent. So either include the article ("a"/"the") on items in the list or just the first (not random like first and third). – czar 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)