Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeon Siege/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2017 [1].

Dungeon Siege

edit
Nominator(s): PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Siege is a bit of an odd duck of a video game, beginning with the title, as the game contains no besieging of dungeons. It got great reviews and sold 1.7 million copies, enough to still be the 70th-best selling PC game even as the market continues to expand... and yet it's considered only the 3rd-best computer RPG of 2002, behind Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind, both of which had better reviews and higher sales. And today, 15 years later... Dungeon Siege is less remembered than either of them: its plot was almost nonexistent, Chris Taylor's favorite word seems to have been "cliché" when it came to designing anything, and its sequels seem to have gotten progressively worse. In fact, the first thing I found when researching this article was a claim that Dungeon Siege represented the turning point where RPGs shifted from experiences focused on deep stories and characters to shallow thrill rides that emphasized "loot", number treadmills, and massacring hordes of enemies for paper-thin reasons.

And yet, Chris Taylor did one thing incredibly right by pushing so hard to release extensive modding tools and documentation—because some of the mods and total conversions people made with this game are still some of my fondest gaming memories, and therefore despite all its flaws Dungeon Siege will always have a place in my heart. I hope this article represents the game well, and if it inspires you to play it... well, you should probably play Morrowind instead, honestly, but I hope you like it anyways. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe the infobox image needs an ALT text. I believe ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box needs to be completed for the image in the "Gameplay" section. There are a few spots with "n.a." shown that need to be filled in.
  • When you describe how you can change the main character's appearance, I was wondering if you could change the character's gender as well. Would it be worth to noting that? This is more of a clarification question.
  • In the lead, you mention that the Krug are "resurgent after being trapped for 300 years" yet that information does not appear to be directly present in the "Plot" section (at least to my knowledge). Could you possibly clarify this?
  • This is not a major issue, but I am a little curious about the image used in the "Development" section. It is definitely appropriate for the content, but the image's quality seems rather low. I am leaving this point for whoever does the image review, but I was curious if you could possibly get a higher-quality image. If not, then it is fine; just wanted to point this part out.
  • IGN should not be shown in italics in the Reference section. Same for Metacritic.
  • Would it be worth noting that the films were directed by Uwe Boll considering that he directed many films based on video games and has a rather infamous reputation?

Wonderful job with this article; it was an interesting read. There is not much that I noticed that needed improvement. I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Responding in order:
  • Alt text added to all 3 images
  • Updated the FUR
  • Yes you can, added
  • That's a combination of a couple lines from Plot- that the Seck brought down the Empire of Stars and were then imprisoned underneath Castle Ehb, and the first line that the kingdom of Ehb was created 300 years prior at the dissolution of the Empire of Stars.
  • That makes sense to me; I assumed that it was addressed somewhere in the section and that I was just overlooking it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went searching before nominating, but I couldn't find a better free-use image of Taylor (or fair-use I could ask to be re-licensed)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; this was a very fascinating read. I will support this nomination. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could add some comments for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so though. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from TheSandDoctor
  • I have added an ALT text to the infobox image as mentioned by Aoba47.
  • Regarding the comment by Aoba47 about IGN and Metacritic being italicized, isn't that something just to do with the cite template used? I looked at the source and at the references and saw a lot of |work=[[IGN]] but no '' (which would indicate it being italicized).

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a small factor that I noticed while reading through the article. If it is something caused by the cite template used, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands. Thank you for adding the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: About to run to a meeting so I haven't gotten to these yet, but yes, any website that's in italics in the references is because the cite web template italicizes whatever's in "work", which IGN is with Ziff Davis as the "publisher". My understanding is that trying to counter it by italicizing it again inside the parameter is contraindicated as it makes some very weird html as the output. --PresN 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with this article! Good luck with the FA nomination, I feel that it has a good chance of passing and hope that it does. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber
  • A nice read. Queries below:
The game was highly reviewed by critics upon release - err, "The game was highly rated by critics upon release"
Critics heavily praised - err, sounds odd.Why not just "praised" or "were impressed with/by.."

...and omitting Diablo's long loading times [to make the game experience smoother] - do we need the bracketed bit?

..Dungeon Siege was very commercially successful - is "very" needed here?

Ok, looks good on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I never played it (incidentally: Morrowind was released 15 years ago?!), but I know the genre.

  • "Taylor wanted to do a different type of game than before" Produce?
  • "the Krug, the farmer and their companions are soon swept up in finding a way to defeat the Seck" Could we have a couple of words of description for each of these groups?
  • I copyedited the plot section a bit. I felt there was some equivocation between the player and the player character, but I recognise that this is complicated by the fact that the player controls any one of a party of characters in addition to the main character. Could you please double-check my edits?
  • "Taylor wanted to do a different type of game" Again! develop is another possibility.
  • "release in Q3 of 2001" Jargon
  • "According to the NPD Group, in the month before release it was the eighth-best selling computer game on the basis of its preorders, and upon release in April 2002 it was the second-best selling, after The Sims: Vacation." The wording here is quite ambiguous- could you possibly rephrase?
  • "IGN's Adams, however, said that it could get monotonous," This is slightly ambiguous; what does the "it" refer to?
  • "could easily get unbalanced between different players" Become?
  • "2003 Annual Interactive Achievement Awards in the Computer Role-Playing Game of the Year and Innovation in Computer Gaming categories, though it did not win either" Would it be worth noting what did win? I think that's helpful context, personally.
  • "It received generally lower reviews than the original" Is lower reviews really the right way to phrase this?

Support on prose; very engaging read, and I'm sure the above comments can be dealt with quickly. Please do double-check my (mostly very light) copyediting. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, time keeps on going... though, 15 years and we're only up 2 more Dungeon Siege and 2 more Elder Scrolls games!
  • Reviewed your changes and made a couple tweaks.
  • Fixed the issues noted above. --PresN 02:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good, thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

edit

Two minor points:

  • The last sentence in the Development section states an April 5 release date for the game, but the cited source – Ref #1 – says the game was released on March 31, as does Metacritic. I don't know if you'd find it better to change the prose to March 31, or replace Ref #1 with the game's entry at the Steam database, which confirms the April 5 date.
  • The second paragraph of the Reception section contains: The graphics were highly praised; Dan Adams of IGN called it "ridiculously pretty to watch", while reviewers for GameSpot and GamePro praised the "wonderfully detailed and varied environments".[1][3][33] I'm not sure it's right to have that final quotation attributed to two different sources like that. This could work if you just removed the quotation marks altogether and have the sentence read as ... GameSpot and GamePro praised the environments as being detailed and varied.—which both sources do. I'd say this same thing about the final sentence of the same paragraph, but both IGN and GameSpot reviews do happen to individually praise the "ambient" score and sound design, so no such problem there.

And that's it! Fantastically sourced article: all publications seem reliable, everything on the article is attributable to its indicated source [save for point #1 above], every source has been archived, and the article uses a consistent style of formatting. Earwig's tool showed no copyright violation: one source – Ref #33 – at 15.3%, but that was because of two direct quotations; everything else below 6.5%. Well done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, what? I swear that didn't say March 31 when I cited it, I was only using it to cite that one date. The archives say otherwise though. Switched to another cite already in the article. (the date is given on the last page. It appears that April 5 was the official release date, but retailers didn't adhere strongly to it so some people got to buy it as early as March 31 depending on the store they went to, since it wasn't a major release that the publisher really cracked down on things like that for. Maybe; this is all forum posts from 15 years ago talking.)
  • Yeah, I see your point about that being off, changed to your suggestion.
@Homeostasis07: Addressed both points. --PresN 02:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
ALT text seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dungeon_Siege/archive1&oldid=792348183"