Talk:Sunset Overdrive

Undue weight and assumptions in new Criticism section

==Criticism==
Response to hearing that Sunset Overdrive is to be an Xbox One exclusive has been mixed. Many of Insomniac's fans were angered due to Insomniac having a long history of developing video games exclusively for the PlayStation console brand. Some have gone as far as to call Insomniac "traitors". They want it to release on the PlayStation 4 as well as the Xbox One because their fan base consists of mainly PlayStation fans. Many also believe that the game will not sell very well if their fan base cannot support it. On top of that, many have called Insomniac hypocrites for talking about the benefits of developing games for multiple consoles with their latest game, Fuse, and then going back to exclusivity.

<ref name="E3 2013: Insomniac Still Could Make Games for Sony">{{cite web |url=http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2013/06/e3_2013_insomniac_still_could_make_games_for_sony/ref>

I moved this section from the article because it puts undue weight on the fan reaction (which at most should be a sentence, if even that can be cited). It uses "weasel words" (especially "many") to voice a point of view that isn't cited in reliable sources nor presented neutrally. Also the one source cited doesn't verify any of the POV statements. Instead of edit warring over this addition to the article, let's discuss it here first. As it stands, it doesn't pass Wikipedia policy for inclusion. czar · · 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just look at all the comments here: http://www.insomniacgames.com/a-message-from-ted-sunset-overdrive/ Almost everyone feels the way described in the "Criticism" section. And that is no exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.145.114 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, but Wikipedia doesn't base articles (or portions of an article) on user comments from a website. Facts can be summarized when reported by a reliable source. The video games WikiProject has a list of the sources whose reporting is regularly used in articles. If one of these sources mentions the fan reaction to Insomniac as something notable, we can consider including it. Devoting a whole paragraph to such an issue, though, would be quite undue compared to the entire (short) article. At most, a sentence on the subject may be useful, but only if the sourcing backs it up. czar · · 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement disguised as an encyclopedia article

It's obvious that this article for a game that came out three days ago is an advertisement, written by the PR department of the publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost every AAA video game titles has their own articles before their releases. I don't see your point. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's also the case for big budget films, popular books etc. I don't believe that this game should be specifically targeted-69.157.253.160 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunset Overdrive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In progresss... ping me if I haven't started anything here by the end of tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, ping czar 23:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

• Prose:
  • Overall, article prose is decent. My major issue is that there's a lot of independent clauses that are spliced together by a succession of commas, and should either be simplified or broken up.
    • Any particular examples? AdrianGamer (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I think the most egregious have been addressed in copyedits. There's also a minor issue with a lot of repetitious sentence construction which makes things feel a bit sloggy, like This mode supports up to eight players, and tasks players to complete a series of missions, as decided by the players themselves—there's another sentence almost right after it with the same use of commas for several pauses in the prose as opposed to purely for linking clauses. This isn't something that's a deal breaker for GA, just letting you know in case people try and take this to FA in the future.
        •  Done I have rephrased it.
  • The game did not support free roam co-op when it was launched, but this feature can be added to the game through a post-release expansion. — uh, did this ever release? Needs to be updated, because right now it could read as "they might come up with a post-release expansion that enables it".
    •  Removed I don't think free roam co-op would ever be added.
  • In places there's an overuse of "can" when the statements don't call for them. For instance "the protagonist can respawn without a loading screen" makes no sense. You don't respawn with a loading screen, period. I've gone through and adjusted some of these, but you should look out for more.
    •  Done Feel free to tell me if you think it is still overused.
  • In order to combine combat and traversal together, the team introduced the Style Meter. —What team? We don't mention the devs until the Development section (and shouldn't). Rephrase to deal with the game itself.
    •  Done
• Images:
  • The fair use rationale for File:Sunset Overdrive Xbox One gameplay screenshot.png is pretty weak; there's not really any compelling reason why you couldn't combine the user interface of that image with a shot that shows the more vibrant palette like File:Sunset Overdrive colors.jpg and have one image serve the purpose of two (minimal use criterion.)
    • I have removed the gameplay screenshot. I can't really find any decent screenshot with the user interface on it.
      • I chose to keep the gameplay screenshot. It is more informative than the color screenshot.
• References:
  • What makes iDigitalTrend (cur. ref 9 and elsewhere) reliable?
    •  Removed source 9
      • It's still being used for current ref 48. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
        •  Removed
  • Spot-checked statements sourced to current refs 1, 2, 19, 29, 69, 73, and 74. I didn't notice any issues with statements being unsourced, or too closely paraphrased to the sources.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thank you for the review! I have addressed some of your concerns, though I have some questions. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I'll take another look over the article and pass if no other issues jump out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)