Talk:Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels

Infobox

In the Infobox, the "Platform(s)" field includes "PC". I think that the "Platform(s)" field should specify a value or values from the " Supported platforms" section of the Vgclegend template. For example, if Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels only runs on MS-DOS, then Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels's Infobox should specify "DOS" in the "Platform(s)" field. ProResearcher (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot issues and bias

The game summary is written like it's on the back of a video game's box, or an article on the Warhammer Wikia. We're here to provide a concise and simple plot summary of the game, not inform the readers everything about Genestealers and the WH40K universe. They have the Tyranid article for that.

In regards to the "Reception" section, it appears to be biased in favour of the game, using terms such as "intelligent" to describe it. We're supposed to keep articles as neutral as possible. Verified Cactus (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus - Your accusation of bias doesn't make sense. If a game gets positive reviews, we have to report that it got positive reviews; to do otherwise would be being biased.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin IIIa: I agree with that statement, but there are several cases where there is unquoted praise of the game, for example:

1. "...on closer examination is a complex and engrossing strategy game."
2. "...the game's innovative strategic gameplay"
3. "...divided critics, who generally applauded or jeered the game" "Jeered" kind of has a negative connotation to it, as far as I know.
4. "...based on their level of patience for its complex strategic gameplay." I don't think it's suitable to say this at all unless quoted.
5. "...creepy voice overs..." This wording is unfitting of an encyclopedia.
6. "...praised the intelligent gameplay"
7. "...and the way that the mech straightens itself out in the wrong direction whenever it bumps into a wall." Not bias, but readers won't know what the article is referring to by this.

If you were to quote those lines from their articles, or remove the adjectives, I don't think there'd be an issue with bias. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus - Removing adjectives removes important information. For example, if we remove "creepy" from "creepy voice overs", the reader is left with no idea what the reviewer thought was good about the voice overs.

More to the point, equating the presence or absence of bias with the presence or absence of quotation marks is a mistake. Encyclopedias are written with the understanding that when you explicitly attribute an opinion to someone, quotations marks are not only redundant, but improper unless you're presenting a full statement word-for-word from the source. When you write, "Roger Ebert said that...", then readers will know that what follows is Roger Ebert's opinion, regardless of whether or not there are any quotation marks in it.

For the record, the reverse is also true: You shouldn't conclude that bias is absent simply because something is quoted. One of the most common advertising strategies is to present pages of nothing but quotes. Some of the most blatantly POV-driven passages I've seen in my eight years on Wikipedia consisted of quotation-mark-enclosed text.

"jeered" is simply the opposite of "applauded", hence "applauded or jeered". As for point 7, I don't see where there's room for confusion. I understood exactly what was meant when I read that, and I haven't played the game or even watched videos of it. It seems very straightforward.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin IIIa I understand that removing adjectives leads to removal of information, but in regards to "creepy", the term just seems too casual/colloquial to be in an article, akin to "super".

I largely agree with your point about bias and quotes, but there are several cases (previously stated) which I believe still ought to be changed. For example, "...based on their level of patience for its complex strategic gameplay." I don't feel like we're in a position to make that claim.

Regarding the "mech" quote, no mech is mentioned in the article at all, which would lead to confusion amongst any person unfamiliar with the game. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus - I see your point about "creepy", but I don't completely agree, and I can't think of a better word to substitute. Here's the relevant text from the review; maybe you can come up with a better way to summarize it.

There are also tons of voice overs, which are kind of creepy. Hearing the person in charge of the mission laughing maniacally and screaming 'This is for Ezekiel!' really makes your skin crawl.

I actually don't see how we could be in any more of a position to make a claim about the overall response to the game, seeing as how we have nine reviews whose assessments are pretty much all along the lines of either (a)"Space Hulk is far more than a standard 3D blast fest ... the game requires sharp thinking and pure tactics" or (b)"If Space Hulk were faster and less complicated, it might have been a truly formidable 3DO action disc ... If you want to think before you shoot - and think a lot - then maybe this Blood's for you."

I hadn't realized there was no use of the word "mech" elsewhere in the article. I still don't think it's at all confusing due to the context, but I went ahead and replaced it with the more generic "player-controlled unit". I also deleted the word "intelligent", since re-reading the article I found that word is totally redundant to the quote which follows it. Finally, I deleted "admitted"; that word has a tendency to suggest bias, and normally I'm very careful about how I use it, but looking at it now I don't see any need for it to be there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin IIIa Fair points. I still think that "creepy" ought to be replaced, despite the fact that the original author used it. Perhaps "eerie" or "ominous" might fit it better. The Verified Cactus 100% 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus Sorry for the late response; I decided to take a break from this thread when I realized I was getting defensive when there was no call to be, and neglected to get back to it before now. Anyway, "eerie" sounds good to me, so I'll go ahead and edit that in.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Martin IIIa No worries, mate. Good to know we could reach a conclusion. The Verified Cactus 100% 16:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I remember that game very well, I really had a hard time finishing it. I think it was only released on 3DO so it is a very confidential game. Anyway the gameplay was really innovative and I don't think the genre has ever been copied since. I mean, you had a mix of strategy+fps, and I don't know other games proposing that. The usual strategy was rather simple to understand but not always easy to put in practise. Global idea was that you had to always make sure each marine had a single fire direction. Sometimes you had to put a marine on a crosspath but then he couldn't stand for much long. You'd put your most experienced marines for the most difficult position to hold. Idea was to slowly progress in the maze-like vessel making sure you had at all time a watertight squad. So dealing with strategy was very similar to what mind-games are, I mean high-brain calculation, plus the fact that you had to deal with some really close timing+ a bit of chance. The strategy planning had limited time to be set, because the game switches to fps after a few seconds. I'd be glad to give more details if asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.164.74.49 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Games

I want to know how I can download a game Orji liberty (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)