Talk:Rocket League/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. JOEBRO64 00:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• I'd add specific mentions of what was praised and criticized, not just "[the game] was critically praised"

 Done – to summarise the "critical reception" section of the article, I've added the passage, ... earning positive reception for its improvements upon Battle-Cars, its graphics and multiplayer gameplay, though some critics were skeptical of the game's physics engine. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

• A player may also utilize boost → A player may also use a boost

 Done – sentence has been reworded as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Development

• You don't need to link to Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars here, since it's linked in gameplay.

 Done – Unlinked as requested, though I should note that I'm of the opinion that each new section should be a refresh for wikilinks, since most readers would only be reading particular sections, and not the article as a whole. Life would be easier for most readers if every section is allowed one wikilink each to a particular subject, excluding things like common nouns or places, of course. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• They had at one point considered having Rocket League as a free-to-play title with potential microtransactions, following along with how games like Valve Corporation's Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 had achieved success.[26] Though they had put in efforts for this free-to-play model, they opted to switch to sell the game once and offer only cosmetic elements as downloadable content, assuring that no players would have any additional advantage beyond their own skill.[28] Too many uses of "they"; needs copyediting.

 Done – I've reworded and clarified the passage as follows: Psyonix had at one point considered having Rocket League as a free-to-play title with microtransactions, inspired by Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2's free-to-play systems. Though they had put in efforts to establish a free-to-play model, Psyonix decided instead to switch to a traditional sale method, and offer only cosmetic elements as downloadable content, assuring that no players would have any additional advantage beyond their own skill. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Though the Xbox One version initially lacked this feature at launch I'd cut "initially"

 Done – rephrased as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Psyonix plans to continue to support Rocket League with downloadable content I'd link to downloadable content and add (DLC) in parenthesis after it.

 Done – wikilinked and clarified through parentheses as requested – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Release

• it was announced that the Awkward/weasel words—who announced it?

 Done – the phrase has been reworded and clarified as follows: Psyonix and Xbox announced at The Game Awards 2015 that the game would be ported to Xbox One, and it was released on February 17 ... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Professional competition

• A $75,000 Rocket League tournament will be held at the Summer X Games during July 2017, with finals to be streams on ESPN3. Has this happened yet?

 Done – I've updated the entire passage, and added two new citations. The passage now reads as follows: A $75,000 Rocket League tournament was held outside U.S. Bank Stadium at the Summer X Games in July 2017, with the finals streamed live on ESPN3. NRG eSports claimed their first live Rocket League championship by winning the tournament, defeating Gale Force eSports in the final. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• Rocket League, upon release and throughout its lifetime, has been given positive reviews by video game critics. Positive feedback was aimed towards the game's multiplayer gameplay, and its graphics and visuals, especially in comparison to Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars; later reviews praised the player experience in the game. Criticism was mostly aimed at the game's physics engine, though a consensus on the issue has been mostly unclear, with some defending the engine. This entire statement is unsourced. You also don't need to link to Supersonic again, and issue is a word that should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Euphemism).

 Partly done – Wikilink and wording issues have been resolved (issue → topic), but I do not agree with the assertion that the lead paragraph is unsourced. It's a lead; it is a summary of the nitty-gritty of the "Critical reception" section. Everything mentioned in this paragraph is further detained and cited further in the section below. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Anything that can be challenged requires a direct reference. That's why I'm requesting this. Also, the Metacritic scores are listed in prose, which is unnecessary—the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own (WP:MOSVG#Reception). JOEBRO64 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Okay, how do you suggest going about doing this? The only way I can think of is literally chucking the existing citations into the lead, and I think things like "^{[127][128][129][130][131]}" would be quite the ugly sight. I also need clarification on what the problem is with how Metacritic is represented in prose. Does it go into too much detail, or can it be better worded, or something else perhaps? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I know it looks ugly, but per Wikipedia policy that's what you should do (maybe not that many, though—between two and four should be good). As for Metacritic, just say something like "According to the review aggregator Metacritic, all versions of Rocket League received "generally favorable reviews"". JOEBRO64 19:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done – I've employed a new strategy that I just improvised now, where I use an {{efn}} note to house all the citations supporting the broad claims made in the lead section. However, I disagree with the removal of important information in regards to the Metacritic score itself. If film and music articles can have aggregate scores featured, why not video game articles, especially when most video game articles do already? The Metacritic score is quite important to a lot of readers. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• 'Mr Pinkerton' → "Mr. Pinkerton"

 Done – typo has been fixed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

References

• All refs look good to me.

Images

• The only image I think is not needed is File:Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1.jpg, which per WP:NFCC#8 doesn't belong unless it is the subject of critical commentary.

 Done – File:Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1.jpg as been removed as requested. The {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} on the file's page has been updated also, to reflect this change. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

JOEBRO64 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Nice work. JOEBRO64 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: I've updated the article to implement your recommendations. I've made a note of my changes under each of your points in the review, and the corresponding edits can be seen in the edit history of the Rocket League article. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: OK. This is good to go. JOEBRO64 21:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)