Talk:Vampyr (video game)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Anarchyte in topic GA Review

Useful sourcesUseful sources

edit
Thank you. Cognissonance (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vampyr (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 13:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll start this tomorrow. One thing though, does release need to be a lvl2 section? It's short enough that it might be better for it to be a lvl3 in development, but this could just be personal preference (as I don't remember there being an official way to do it). Up to you and either way, I'll review the rest tomorrow and in the coming days. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I previewed your suggestion, and it simply didn't look right. It's big enough to be its own section. Two lines less, it wouldn't be. Cognissonance (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's fine. Here are some more comments. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • amenable to destruction based on the player's actions, which may also lead to four alternative endings Can this be reworded? It's hard to follow. Perhaps amenable to destruction based on the player's actions. Their actions also influence which of the game's ending they experience.
  • Since the article first mentions London here, say it's set during the Spanish flu. Set during the era of the Spanish flu, London serves as a fictional...
  • Now the next paragraph's opening sentence doesn't have to mention the flu. To gather an understanding of the background, the developers researched the setting by travelling to London and... (not a fan of the word "background" here, but using "London" again makes it repetitive)

Gameplay

edit
  • could be targeted, which has consequencescould be targeted, bearing consequences
  • How is being able to leap across gaps related to combat?

Plot

edit
  • a typical feature in the progeny of vampires. Is this from the game or is it a general statement? If it's the latter, it needs a source.

Looking good so far! Here's the rest. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Development

edit
  • The article uses "60" and "80" here but "sixty" in gameplay. Are we sticking to the numbers or the words?
  • considered to set the game inconsidered setting the game in
  • was hired for the voice of was hired to voice
  • What was the use of the literary sources? The article mentions the TV shows were used for medical information, but the books are left undescribed.
  • Isn't it to be assumed a game has a backup system? I don't think this is entirely necessary, but it's up to you.
  • for years of developmentthroughout development

Release

edit
  • This section doesn't include the release date.
Oh my bad. Must've missed that.  Y Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reception

edit
  • There are a lot of quotes here that could be paraphrased.
"healing and killing"Reid's natures or acting as a doctor or vampire
"some inherent worth"importance
"interesting"compelling
"excellent" can go.
story for its "grounded approach" and favoured the "citizen system"story and enjoyed the citizen mechanics.
@Cognissonance: That's in the first paragraph, but the second has similar issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Additionally, it's very "X said Y" with non-sequiturs between each reviewer. Try finding common points raised by a few reviewers and splitting the section into paragraphs on each point, rather than a wall of text of pros and cons. For example, I've noticed the atmosphere is mentioned a lot. There could be a few lines only about what reviewer's praised it for and what they thought its shortcomings were, if any. You could also write one about character development that features comments from both sides. For instance, Destructoid liked it, but Game Revolution disliked it. I usually try to find one that was highly praised, with almost no one criticising it, one or two aspects that received mixed comments, and one that was universally hated.
Remember Me connected the reviewers: Taljonick agreed and Taljonick also disliked. While you can disregard the idea of reworking the whole section if you'd like, try to make a couple connections between the reviews so that it flows nicer. "x shared similar sentiments", "z agreed", "y also held the opinion that", etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I made one connection during the quote paraphrasing. Will try to find more ways. Cognissonance (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Anarchyte: How does it look now? Cognissonance (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's looking a lot better. I'll have one final read through in an hour or so. Also, seeing as Lordtobi has changed a few numbers to words, might it be better if 60 and 80 are changed too, even though they're larger than twelve? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Y Cognissonance (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  • Everything fine's here. Access dates aren't required.

Overall

edit

@Cognissonance: This is very close to being a good article. The main issues lie in the reception section which could benefit from a bit of a makeover. This is on hold for now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looking good! I've made a few of my own changes, but this is good enough to be passed now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply