Talk:Lemnis Gate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Outcome: It's been some time since the review and I understand the nominator has not had the capacity to update it. I am closing the review, but when the nominator is able to work on the article again, they are more than welcome to immediately renominate.

Criteria

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Verifiable with no original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
(c) it contains no original research:
(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Neutral

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Stable

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

Comments

General comments

• Thanks for your work on this article; it's clear that you've put a lot of time into it. I think this article is in a generally good state. The article does not seem to suffer any editorial impediments that would impair its recognition as a good article in the long term.

• The sourcing is generally good, with a decent mix of primary and secondary coverage, with a good range of reviews from notable secondary sources. My only comments would be to ensure where a statement is paired with a citation, it can be verified, and to reduce attribution in text.

• However, the contents of the article could be improved in terms of its tense and writing to be more direct and informative. There are some information gaps and phrasing choices that could be worked on. These things are subjective, and I appreciate that a lot of this is nitpicking, but it does come from a place of trying to make this article as informative as can be.

• At present, I don't think the article is quite in GA territory. The below feedback is an assortment of thoughts and suggestions that could help drive it to that standard. I've put the assessment on hold if you would like to work on the article, but it is also fine to seek a reassessment or a second opinion if you think more time is needed.

Lead paragraph

• on its first day of release as well - For concision, you might like to omit redundant sentences such as 'as well'.
• The attempt to describe the loop system in the game is a little confusing. I like the phrasing in the gameplay section that states the game is a turn-based first-person shooter with timeloop and hero shooter elements, and this may be more appropriate framing in the lead paragraphs.
• noting the game's low player count and that it is shut down during a wave - The phrasing is a little awkward. It may be enough to state it was "amongst a trend of shutdowns of similar live service games".

Gameplay

• This section does not quite incorporate enough information to have a good overview of the game. I think the article spends (if rightly) so much time trying to properly define the unique time loop mechanic that it neglects mention of how the game actually plays generally. A 'standard game mode' is mentioned but no other modes are canvassed. The win conditions of the 'Seek and Destroy' mode aren't clear. It may be better to separate the time loop mechanic in its own paragraph, and really spell out what core gameplay features were offered by the game.
• The second paragraph is a little indirect, because it is not really describing the gameplay per se but the subjective experience of matches during gameplay. This is fine as it's hard to pin down the unique dynamic of the game, but it comes off as a little impressionistic and indirect.
• One reviewer gave an example of how the loops affected gameplay - The description is self-evident and does not really need attribution to outline.
• squeak out a draw - This is odd phrasing.
• Games could quickly devolve into puzzle sessions - Rather than attempting to paraphrase the reviewers, it may be better to outline that reviewers noticed the co-operative time loop mechanics created emergent gameplay as players created new problem-solving and strategy tactics.

Development

• There are lots of sources here to furnish a good development section. I think the current content is good, but it seems to connect a a lot of trivial details. There is no real guidance for this in the MOS, but I would err on the side of focusing on explaining developmental milestones and design choices rather than incidental or interesting decisions i.e. the tutorial used to be longer, or there was a funny bug in the game. It really comes down to distilling what the most important hooks are to properly describe the journey of a game's development, and what that can inform readers about the content of the end product itself. Again, that's just my take - but I hope it helps.
• inspired by conversations that started in 2015 - The source is vague and indirect about this, and it's not a very good hook. It may be best to be more direct and state that Lemnis Gate was conceived by developers as early as 2015 and began development in 2017.
• ...according to developer Ratloop's blog - I don't think author attribution is needed here where a citation is present, particularly when it is not directed to a specific person.
• wanted to create a something with a unique take - fix typo, suggest avoiding vague terms like 'something' - if this sentence wording is paraphrased from the source, better to quote.
• the game was delayed by a month - This seems to be a minor delay that isn't too informative unless there was a notable reason provided by the developers for the delay? Also, you may want to put this before the sentence about the release, which flows better.

Reception

• You may wish to add a review template to catalogue the review scores that the game received from notable publications. You can find a guide on how to do so here.
• This section could be slightly expanded. It's clear the reviews are largely mixed, but each citation is used to support a different position statement on the game. A longer section could flesh out these issues thematically. Check out WP:VG/REC for more information on this.
• The game was on a GameSpot list which highlighted the highest-ranked first person shooters on Metacritic from 2021 - This is framed awkwardly. GameSpot can be taken to be a reliable source that the game was one of the highest-ranked FPS games for the year. Its position on the GameSpot list itself is not really an engaging point. I would pair this with the Metacritic reference.

Server shutdown

• After failing to meet player count and sales expectations - This is evidently true, but the Game Rant article does not verify this, at best states the game "seemingly failed to find its audience". Is there a primary source that outlines the reason for the shutdown?
• PC players asked the developers in the comments of the shutdown announcement... - This is not really a notable point; players being upset in the comment box is not exactly a new phenomenon.
• stats from Steam showed that the game peaked...highlighting a clear reason for the shutdown - The SteamDB figure is a little technical. It may be better to more directly state that reviewers observed the game maintained a low number of concurrent players and speculated this contributed to the decision for the shutdown.
• multiplayer graveyard - The GD comment is not really informative commentary. Do any of the three sources attribute market reasons for the downturn in live service games in 2023?

• • @Vrxces: Thanks for the detailed review-- real life has been unexpectedly pressing in the last couple of weeks. I'll be working to address your comments over the next few days now that I have a bit more time. Thanks for all of this! Nomader (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries, you're welcome. I note that it's been a few weeks; are you still looking to improve the article? Otherwise, it may be best to close this nomination and start a new GAN when you have the time to update. If so, please ping me when you do and I'm more than happy to help process the GAN. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)