Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Survival horror/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Survival horror

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed its Good Article review, and we are hoping to improve the article to achieve featured status. The main issue will be quality of prose and any formatting and style issues. Most of the feedback from the Video Games Wikiproject feels that the article is pretty comprehensive, and it's more or less stable.

There should be no issues with the FUC or the references, which should all be reliable. But if there are ways to make this more clear (by amending the images, or by amending the citation templates), I want to know in advance to prevent any misconceptions.

Thanks, Randomran (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a very good article. As far as prose and structure go, I didn't see any outstanding problems. A light copyedit will probably be required for the sticklers at FAC, but the casual reader would have a hard time finding a problem with it. Aside from that, here are a few things I noticed:
    • Its sourcing is mostly excellent, but could use more scholarly/book sources, and perhaps more print sources in general. There is a slight bias toward online sources, particularly IGN, which probably isn't necessary given the genre's coverage from game design theorists.
    • On that note, a deeper analysis of the genre, using scholarly sources on game design theory, would be nice. The practical aspects of the genre are covered well, but greater coverage of its cultural and psychological foundations would enrich the article. I recently read an article at The Escapist discussing a cult of female fans dedicated to Silent Hill's Pyramid Head, as a result of his being an icon of sexual violence. This is an example--although I'm not saying you should use that article--of what I mean.
    • The article speaks generally too often. Some aspects of the genre, I admit, are universal. But several times I noticed the use of generalization when the article should have been specific. I'll give examples shortly; this is being typed from a non-PC device, which would cause copy/pasting to quickly become tiresome.
    • Greater coverage of survival horror elements in non-horror games would be a welcome addition; the famous horror sections in the Thief games are an example. The Condemned series could also be mentioned, as a hybrid of action and horror elements. In general, the genre's influence should be covered in greater detail.
    • Finally, deeper coverage of the genre's Japanese origins vs. its Western evolution would be nice, if the information exists.
  • Some of these might not be actionable, due to the lack of examples cited. When I get back to a computer, I'll remedy this. But all-in-all, a very well done article, despite being a little slight on the coverage of certain elements. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey there. Thanks for the feedback. I found a scholarly source that talks about some of the psychological/emotional aspects of survival horror. I also managed to explain the Japanese influence upon the genre, and really tried to explain the Western/Japan tension that led things to really change in the early 2000s. I hope you think it's an improvement. I'd appreciate any feedback about copy-editing or what not.
    • On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake for the article to drift too much further into other action games, as the article already covers games like Doom 3 and The Thing. I haven't found any sources that note more than a passing similarity between Thief and Resident Evil (let alone earlier horror games). I think it's important that the genre sticks to the gameplay and history of survival horror, rather than becoming a genre about horror in video games in general.
    • I've also had trouble turning up any additional book/print sources, and a lot of scholarly sources I've found test the limits of WP:RS. Obviously I'd love to add more scholarly stuff, but I haven't really found much. If you can direct me to any research that you think would improve the article, I'd really appreciate it.
    • Let me know about those overgeneralizations, though. And by all means, if you have further ideas to improve the article, don't stop there. Thanks for the review! Randomran (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has definitely been improved. I understand what you mean about digressing into action games; I'd only suggested it because there is no "horror games" article, and thus no other place it could be cover. But if you don't think it should be in there, it's not a huge deal. I would, however, include a mentioning of Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem; it's one of the most famous Western horror games, and its experimental scare tactics were fairly revolutionary. As for scholarly and print sources, here's some good stuff I dug up:
          • On Google books, I found a chapter of the book Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear covering survival horror, and considering its origins in board games. If you have access to Google books, I recommend you check it out, even if you don't have a subscription to it (neither do I). But here are a few highlights--there's more, but I'm not willing to type up a chapter:
            • "Survival Horror" is generally understood to be a game in which the player leads an individual character through an uncanny narrative and hostile environment where the odds are weighed decidedly against the avatar. There is huge diversity within this broad definition. Some avatars have psychological depth and their wits pitted against elaborate puzzles, while others are little more than first-person shooters; some narratives have complex temporal structures while others are unabashedly experiential; some games construct enormous spatial environments while others take place behind the closed doors of a neo-gothic house. -- Could be used in a statement regarding genre diversity.
            • Not only have many games attempted to replicate the Resident Evil formula, it could even be argued that all subsequent survival horror games are obliged to take a stance in relation to it.
            • Overblood (RiverHillSoft, 1997) centres on an amnesiac awaking from cryogenic suspension. This was the first survival horror game to implement a fully three-dimensional virtual environment. [...] Other stylistic triumphs include the elaborate gothic world of Clive Barker's Undying (EA, 2001), and the remarkable hybrid of futuristic anime and Chinese mythology in Fear Effect (Kronos, 2000) and its sequel (2001).
            • As the list of survival horror titles is seemingly endless, many of the game designers start borrowing from computer game genres such as action adventure, first-person shooter, and role-playing games.
            • It may be the setting, the mood or the violence in a game that make it horror. It may be the structuring of the narrative, characterisation, or the experience of gameplay that make it survival horror.
            • The beginnings of the survival horror game genre can be traced back to other game media. The perilous journey of the classic Snake and Ladders board game is a precursor to the survival horror game narrative. -- What follows is an extremely long and detailed analysis regarding the genre's origin in early video games, board/P&P games and even literature. I recommend that you read for yourself; it would take forever to type up.
            • Many survival horror games, and action/adventure as a whole, are structured around the boss encounter -- Continues into a more detailed description.
            • There is a sub-chapter entitled "The Intensification of Atmosphere: Japanese Influences on Survival Horror", which looks like good reading. It includes this quote from the Silent Hill 2 developers: "To make a death scene, you know, somebody died or a monster's died ... if we make that kind of scene we tried to mix erotic essence. This is ... a visual and ... core concept." Ito Masahiro acknowledges Francis Bacon influence on his monster design. The section also further explains the connection of sex and horror in Japanese games.
            • There's even a section on the films that have inspired the genre.
            • There are a ton more parts, but I recommend you find them; I'm about to burn out before I even get to the second book.
          • Here we have Level designs for games: creating compelling game experiences. It discusses the survival horror genre and its origins, but Google books isn't letting me see how.
          • Here's a book called "Music, sound and multimedia". It contains a chapter of detailed analysis of the use of music in survival horror games, using Silent Hill as a case study. It's long and academic; better to read in full (on Google books) than to excerpt.
      • This is the end of part 1. I need to submit this, for fear of losing it in a browser crash. I'll begin on part 2 immediately after. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Digital gameplay: essays on the nexus of game and gamer contains scholarly discussion of survival horror, but Google books won't let me read it. As for scholarly sources, Google Scholar (in a search for "survival horror game") is bringing up quite a few things that look interesting and probably reliable (Wikipedia is fairly lenient when it comes to scholarly sources). Unfortunately, the computer I'm now on is using a version of Acrobat so ancient that the PDF ones don't display properly. So, unfortunately, I can't give you excerpts. I can, however, recommend that you scan the first several pages of results; they look good. In this non-PDF Game Studies article [1], for example, we have the section entitled "Silent Hill". It deals with music in horror games, and I recommend you include it in the article; it's a very comprehensive analysis. Besides that, though, I'm going to have to leave you to wade through the ocean of academic double-speak that is Google Scholar.
  • Finally, in my search for overgeneralization, I couldn't find much. There seemed to be more the first time through, probably because what I thought of as generalization is actually just description, which I can see now after reading all that stuff about the genre. However, one line I took issue with the first time still sticks out to me: "Levels are also designed to be dark and claustrophobic" -- not always the case. The Horror Film excerpt about varying level design should allow you to change it to something like "Levels are often designed to be...", or somesuch.
  • If I think of anything else, I'll mention it. As of right now, I think the addition of print and scholarly sources should flesh out all the elements that need be covered. As for a copyedit, I don't know who you'd ask; on my most recent project, it took like 6 talk page "cold calls" before I could find anyone willing to help. I could comb it over the next few days, if you want. I'm not much of a copyeditor, but a fresh pair of eyes is usually helpful. Anyway, that's it for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now that I notice it, the image of Resident Evil used in the lead could probably use a "purpose of use" rationale, in line with the other two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope these little additions aren't too annoying, but I was looking at your First-person shooter article, where the Game design section has several subsections. I thought that, particularly if you include scholarly material, it might be a good idea to do that here. For example, the description of survival horror's use of visual/aural cues could go into a "Presentation" subsection, or something. And if you cover the psychological side of the design, which the designers of Silent Hill love to talk about, that could have its own subsection. Just some suggestions. Sorry about the commentspam. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, thanks a lot for the suggestions. Sorry it took me a couple of days to get to them. Give them a look and see what you think, and tell me if you think there are any outstanding issues. As for the copy-editing / prose, let me know if you think it's safe to try for FA, or if you think I should get a little more help. I know they'll end up asking for a lot of changes anyway, but I'd hate to see it quick-failed for being miles short of their standards. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's looking really good. I'd still try to fit a presentation subsection into the "Game design" section; the article doesn't cover horror music or the common visual cues designers use to induce fright. If you haven't found anything like that, I could try one more time to dig up some sources. But other than that, it's fairly complete content-wise. As for the prose, I think you'll need another pair of eyes. I noticed a few things that the FAC prose brigade will definitely raise a fuss about. For example:
            • "These boss encounters give meaning to the narrative by drawing upon elements of antagonists seen in other horror fiction." -- Vague.
            • "Games typically feature a variety of monsters, which all behave differently." -- A little stilted. Maybe, "Survival horror games typically feature a variety of monsters with unique behavior patterns"?
            • "Areas of the game world will be off limits until the player gains certain items, although levels are sometimes designed with alternative routes." -- "Certain areas of the game world often cannot be accessed until the player gains a specific item. Occasionally, levels contain alternate routes." Or something like that.
            • "Direct combat is de-emphasized, and players must often run and hide from enemies, or turn the enemy's environment against them." -- "Confrontation is de-emphasized; players must often run and hide from enemies, or use the environment to their advantage."
          • These are just some examples, but if User:Tony1 and co. see these or anything like them, they'll oppose for sure. I could try doing a little work on it, if you want, but I probably won't be more than a minor help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • A lot of the graphical stuff is kind of incidental, when talking about trying to horrify people. I'm not really sure what more to say than that, and I haven't found many sources that talk about it. But thanks for the advice on the copy-edits. Do you see any other parts of the article that need attention? Randomran (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if you don't want a Presentation section, then no. After the copyedit is finished, you should be set for FAC. Good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about mentioning Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem somewhere.
  • Was just going to add about prose - try to reduce mentions of the words "survival horror" if possible. A common problem is repeating the term which is the subject of the article alot. I might tweak the prose. and revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Survival_horror/archive1&oldid=292196675"