Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate/GA1

GA Review

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

I've been watching this article; it's vastly improved in almost no time at all. Nice work.

I was waiting for it to become a GAN. I know I was a pain on the Torment FAC, so you'll have to forgive me in advance for reviewing this one. Unfortunately, I can't do it today. I should be able to tomorrow, though. Consider the article "on hold" for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. And you weren't a pain... you were just trying to be a thorough reviewer to ensure article quality. That is important, and the article is much better because of that. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Anyway, sorry I didn't pull it together to review this yesterday. I'm here now, for what that's worth.

I'm going to start with the lead:

• The release date is not mentioned in the first paragraph.
• More description of how the game is played would be nice. It's mentioned that it's a role-playing game, but nowhere in the lead is this elaborated on.
• In general, for the whole article, try to call the game "the game", "it" or "Mysteries of Westgate". Additional terms like "the pack" and "the adventure" just confuse the issue.
• The use of the term "adventure pack" seems to be an unnecessary complication. The game is an expansion pack, so why not just call it one? Even if the developers call it an "adventure pack", this can be detailed later on in the article. All the lead needs to say is that it's an expansion pack.
• "The pack provides a fifteen-hour long adventure, new monsters, music, and other tools which can be used by players to create their own Neverwinter Nights 2 levels." Incorporates too many ideas into one sentence; it becomes confusing by the end. Is the fifteen-hour long adventure usable to create NWN2 levels? Because that's how it reads.
• "The adventure takes players to the Forgotten Realms locale of Westgate where they encounter a group of thieves known as the Night Masks." This doesn't make any real sense to me, and would probably make less sense to a non-gamer. Try "the game takes place in the Forgotten Realms, a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting; specifically, in the area of Westgate. The player assumes the role of *insert information here* and *insert information about plot here*." The short description about Night Masks is really unclear. Now, I know from reading part of the rest of the article that a cursed mask is involved, but I still don't really know what the Night Masks are or why they're called that. A clearer description in the lead would be great, detailing the game's plot and the importance of the Night Masks.
• "The pack was made after the success of Ossian Studios' previous work on the Neverwinter Nights premium module Darkness over Daggerford." What is a "premium module"? And did the success of Darkness over Daggerford cause Atari to make them the developer of this game? If so, mentioning that would add clarity.
• "Mysteries of Westgate was their second product, although its release was delayed to April 2009 from its original completion in September 2007." Try combining this sentence (before the comma) into the last sentence. "Mysteries of Westgate was Ossian Studios' second project, after the success of their previous effort, Darkness over Daggerford." This is just a rough idea. As for the delay, let that stand on its own. "The game was completed in September 2007, but was not released until April 2009." Possibly, if it exists, with an explanation of why.
• "Mysteries of Westgate met with mixed reviews, with reviewers mentioning the game's poor plot and lack of spoken dialogue while praising the 25 minutes of music that it adds to the game and the pack's low price point." Try "Mysteries of Westgate met with mixed reviews. The game's 25 minutes of music and low price point were praised, while criticism was aimed at the plot and lack of voice acting." That's better, but still not perfect.

Now onto gameplay:

• In general, the section is too brief. Now, I understand that the gameplay is basically the same as NWN2. But even a little description of how the game is played would be great. Just basic stuff, like "it's top-down, 3D, point-and-click movement for multiple characters, etc".
• It wouldn't hurt to put a few more citations in here, unless, of course, citation 1 covers everything mentioned before it.
• "Mysteries of Westgate is based on Dungeons & Dragons, a pencil and paper fantasy role-playing game." That just seems like overkill. Most people know what Dungeons & Dragons is, and the ones who don't can just click the link. I suggest removing the half of the sentence that appears after the comma, and placing the mention of it being D&D into the sentence I proposed above about increased gameplay detail. "Mysteries of Westgate is a 3D CRPG, etc, point-and-click control, etc, based on the rules of Dungeons & Dragons." Something like that.
• "The player can begin the adventure using either their character from Neverwinter Nights 2 or a new character at level 8." - "The player begins the game by either importing their character from Neverwinter Nights 2, or by generating a new one that starts at character level 8." That's not great, but it's an idea.
• "Mysteries of Westgate adds four new monsters (such as the wererat and sea-serpent-like quelzarn),[2] a "sewer" tileset, some placeables, and new music to the game, which can be used to create custom levels in addition to being a part of the adventure itself.[3]" "Mysteries of Westgate's campaign features content that does not appear in Neverwinter Nights 2 or its other expansions. This includes four new monsters (such as the wererat and sea serpent-like quelzarn), a "sewer" tileset and new music, all of which can be used by players in the creation of custom levels." Something like that.
• "Mysteries of Westgate contains over 15 hours of gameplay, about 7 of which are provided by 16 optional side quests which are not part of the main storyline.[1] The adventure lacks the random encounters of many computer role-playing games.[1]" Try merging these two sentences into paragraph 1, and cutting down on the detail. "It has been estimated that Mysteries of Westgate contains over 15 hours of gameplay, part of which is provided by optional side quests unrelated to the main plot." Or something.

Plot:

• For now, I'm just going to have to question the screenshot. Where it is, I honestly can't see how it adds to the article, even slightly. It doesn't elaborate on the plot at all, and just seems random. If it was moved into gameplay, somewhere, I can see it being worth keeping. I saw you mention that it's against the MOS to do this, but the MOS is sometimes wrong. This is one of those times. Just make sure it's placed so that the text isn't turned into a pancake, which shouldn't be hard with the expansion I proposed. As for the rest, I don't have time right now to review it. I'll be back either later or tomorrow with my comments on Plot, Development and Reception. Sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks; I'll start working on these momentarily. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I think that I've fixed most of these. I just have a few comments/questions:

• Citations in gameplay section: I think that the second paragraph is very well cited. The first paragraph only has the one citation and that only cites that last sentence. However, my feeling is that the rest of the content in that paragraph is A) Obvious from any amount of gameplay or viewing of screenshots. It could all easily be verified with content about NWN2 itself, rather than the expansion, for instance, but typically reviews, interviews, previews, and all other "views" don't really talk about the basic details of an expansion's gameplay because it is unchanged from the core game. B) None of the information in that paragraph (other than the last sentence, which is cited to a reliable source) would seem to be controversial. Per the GA criteria: "[the article] provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;" Because of these two things, my feeling is that a citation isn't required for the first paragraph, before that last sentence. Alternatively, I could cite it with information about the core NWN2, but that also wouldn't be about MoW specifically.
• The image: I think that any good article on a video game should have one screenshot (maybe two depending on the situation, but typically just one), to illustrate the game's graphics and depict some element of gameplay. I chose this image because it seems to be the easiest way to represent both the game's graphics and a new element of the game which was noted in numerous interviews: the new monster. I have moved the image because there was enough expansion that it can be done without looking ugly... I understand that the rationale isn't the best (not the worst either, IMO, just not the best), but I think that not having any screenshot would be a disservice to readers.

• –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)You have a point about the citations; I give in. And with the image, I don't have a problem with it being in the article. It was just its placement; in the plot section, it was out of place and didn't make sense. As for the rest of the issues I mentioned, good job! The only thing is that you might have gone a little overboard with the plot description in the lead, as I don't think I've ever read a lead section that summarizes the entire plot beginning to end. I've edited it a little, but my changes were pretty rough. Feel free to work on them if you think they need it. Anyway, I'll be back in a few hours to review the rest; I have some off-Wikipedia projects to attend to. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; sorry about the plot in the lead. I made some changes to your changes :) to more accurately reflect the game's plot. (by the way, I'll work on switching "adventure pack" and similar terms to "game" and... uh... similar terms as I work through the rest of the article during your review; that seems to make more sense than doing it all at once). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I saw in plot:

• There aren't many problems here, except for a lack of citations in the second paragraph and a general need for some clarifying and copyediting. I've taken care of the copy issues I noticed, but this sentence should probably still be clarified: "The character is aided by three companions: the rogue Rinara, a former Night Mask; Mantides, a fallen paladin; and Charissa, a cleric of Tyr.[7]" When do they join the player? Do they depend on which faction is joined? Are they part of any faction? It's very unclear as of now.

Anyway, on to Development:

• "Ossian decided to make the adventure single-player-only in order to improve the game experience;[3] a co-operative mode was never tested.[10]" Is this final statement necessary? It doesn't seem to make any sense to have it there. If the game was single-player only from the start, why mention that they never tested a co-op mode?
• "who had worked on the premium modules for the original Neverwinter Nights" That premium module term again. I'd have removed it in the copyedit, but I don't understand it well enough to guess what it could be changed to.
• Besides that, the content looks solid. I've fixed a few copy issues I noticed, but that was it.

Reception:

• Looks pretty much the same as the others; more a copy issue than a content one. I've done some editing and rearranging. The only thing is, a few print reviews would be great. As it is, there's only a bare minimum of sources here. I understand that Metacritic only lists 8, but still. If they exist, adding them would be absolutely necessary.

All in all, it's looking good. Take care of the last few issues, and I'll promote it to GA. Nice work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll work on those later today. For the plot, almost all of the references that I could find were unreliable except for the primary source, and that source applies to all the content in both of those paragraphs. For the print sources, I'm really not sure if any exist... I don't think that download-only games really get many reviews (in fact, I was surprised by what there was). Things like PC Gamer don't usually have full reviews of games like this, so I'm not sure if there really are any. Besides (and I know that I asked this before, I just can't remember your answer :) ), why are print reviews so important? If the concern is about the online reviews eventually disappearing, I could archive some with WebCite, but I think that these ones are just as reliable as any print review in Game Informer or any other magazine. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... actually looks like it was reviewed in some print sources long before the final release (before some of the false starts). [1]. I'll look into getting a hold of this information. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. As to your question, there are several reasons that print sources are important. The first and most obvious one doesn't apply here, though: old games need to be cited through print sources, because web sources that reviewed them then probably weren't very reliable at the time. Even if it was IGN, IGN circa 1998 and IGN now are two different things. A more applicable reason here is that print sources are usually about half of the reliable reviews for video games; cutting out print sources gives undue weight to web ones. Another reason is that print sources usually have better editorial, peer review and fact-checking teams than web sources. In general, it's just good to have them around. In the rare case where they aren't available, though, it's usually no big deal. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've asked at WT:VG if anyone has those two print magazines because WP:VG/M doesn't show anyone as having them. If anyone does have (of it I can dig up the reviews some other way), I'll add them in, although I'm not sure when that would be. Anyway, I think that I fixed what you mentioned with the development section, and will do the plot momentarily. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. The only outstanding issues that I know of is the print sources and maybe the citations in the plot, but my feeling is that the former, while it is certainly beneficial to have print sources, isn't required for a GA (although I'll certainly work towards obtaining copies of the reviews to add in at some point), and the latter isn't really an issue other than because two paragraphs are source solely to primary sources... but it is the plot section, which almost always is anyway. (and thank you for your copyediting work; it looks much better now!) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this is GA, I won't complain any more about the print sources or plot citations. Without that standing in the way, the article looks good. Great work; I'll promote it now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll try to work on those as much as possible before taking this to PR and FAC. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! BOZ (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)