Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight

Anonymous source

Editor Favre1fan93 seems dedicated to stating a rumor as fact and quoting therefor an anonymous source. The cited source for the quote not to maniacally screw over customers—but because they believed it was good enough, Klepek, Patrick (July 1, 2015). "Sources: Warner Bros. Knew That Arkham Knight PC Was A Mess For Months". Kotaku, clearly states that the sources were anonymous. Two sources, requesting anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their careers, spoke with Kotaku over the past week in hopes of explaining how the broken PC version of Arkham Knight made it out the door. They both said that Warner Bros. was aware of the many issues facing Arkham Knight on PC and that the publisher chose to ship the game regardless, not to maniacally screw over customers—but because they believed it was good enough. Other sources treated the knowledge as rumor, see e.g. "Rumor: Warner Bros. knew Batman: Arkham Knight was broken on PC before release" Gamezone; and the reliablity of the Kotaku source was even questioned in the comments on the Kotaku webpage. Based on this lack of unanimity of opinion, and failure to establish Warner Bros. knowledge of the defects with reliable sources, it would seem to violate WP:NPOV as well as WP:UNDUE to include this anonymous quote in the Wikipedia article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The quote is a good insight into the report. In how it is used in article, the words "reported" and "their sources" are used to indicate that this is not fact, but the opinions of the sources. I don't believe that is in any violation. And should WB games respond to such claims (I don't believe they have), their response could and should be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk)

The source remains anonymous without indicia of reliability. Also, you haven't addressed the issue of WP:UNDUE. Does not the use of the quote give undue emphasis to Warner Bros. knowledge or lack thereof, in an article that is supposed to be about the game? --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nine months RossButsy (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Nine months RossButsy (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Marketing Section

The Times Square ad image needs to be a little bit bigger, preferably the size I've set it to now and that's because the image is based on content. Readers need to see what the image says and it's not actually visible in the size that was previously set. The objective is to make the article more readable and "view-able" on mobile devices and tablets. The image should be large enough to comprehend without it actually being clicked on for a second time and that's exactly the case here. Majority of the people who're just "reading" Wikipedia, just scroll through the article and just the see the images and try to understand the gravity of the article and if the image is small or requires a second click to see, then it is highly likely that they would not see it. So, let the image stick to the size I've set it to. Thanks! D437 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is purely promotional content, a picture of advertising. I have removed it, ending the controversy. Scr★pIron^IV 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly why the picture was placed in the Marketing section of the article. Doesn't it make sense to show a marketing ploy in the section? And isn't it the formal convention to discuss edits before actually reverting or in this case entirely removing the image? D437 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of if the picture should be kept or not, it is too large. If readers want to see it in its detail, that is what the gallery viewer and/or the actual file location is for. I'm restoring the smaller size back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

See, I get it, the image is a panorama shot, its big and all that, but the current size is too small and my proposed is supposedly too big for everyone here, what if we agree on a size that's not in the extremes? Say, something in between what your proposed image size is and my proposed size is? Say something at about 400px or 375px where its not too large to make it look awkward or too small for readers to not be able to see the image at all. Let's work this out and help people. Thanks! D437 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It really shouldn't go higher than 350. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've set it at 350px. No more reverts or edits, its final. 350. D437 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is ever final. That's not how Wikipedia works. And my comment wasn't that it should be 350. Just that it shouldn't go higher than that. 300 is still an adequate size for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You know what, fine. Keep it your way. Its because of "editors" like you that Wikipedia will never be accepted as a proper/legit/cite-able source anywhere in the world. Thank you. I will remove the image entirely from Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. D437 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to get this done by the end of this week. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• it is the successor to Warner Bros. Games Montréal's 2013 video game Batman: Arkham Origins - listing the developer of Origins in the lead is not necessary. It is too detailed for the lead
  •  Done
• Scarecrow unites Batman's greatest foes in a plot to finally destroy Batman - sounds like something from a press release for some reason. Some rephrase would be great
  • Adjusted. Let me know.
• with a primary focus on Batman's combat and stealth abilities, detective skills, and gadgets that can be used in both combat and exploration. - Rephrase it to with a primary focus on Batman's melee combat, stealth abilities, detective skills, and gadgets. Leave out the remaining part for the gameplay section
  •  Done
• a more open world structure - wikilink open world
  •  Done
• Remember to add information about sales and accolades (if there is any) to the lead.
  • Not many accolades at the moment. Added a sentence about sales that is appropriate at this time.

Gameplay

• grapnel gun, line launcher, batarangs, the countering system and Detective Vision - Source gives no indication that "batarangs" is a returning mechanic
  •  Done I've added a second source for batarangs.
• The second paragraph of the gameplay section is a bit short. Try to integrate more information about the grapnel gun and line launcher here.
• Is Disruptor-rifle a new gun? If it is, it should be moved to the part talking about new gadgets
  • The fact that it is a rifle, with one of its features is new. The Disruptor itself is a returning gadget. I've included wording to clarify.
• imitate other characters' voices to direct thugs into traps - what characters you can imitate then? You imitate the voice of another thug, or as a hostile police, or something else?
  • I've included examples of characters you can imitate. They aren't in the sources provided, but (obviously) from the game itself.
• fired twice while in the air to chain grappling moves together. - source 5 has no use here. The next source has covered it very well
  •  Done
• Arkham Knight introduces enemy medics who can shield enemies in electrified fields and revive unconscious ones,[6] sword-wielding enemies, and brutes who are resistant to damage and must be stunned before they can be attacked, while brutes wielding Gatling guns, tasers, and blades require additional steps to defeat. - This sentence is too long. Try to split into half
  •  Done
• Throughout the city, Batman can encounter enemy watchtowers - "can" is not necessary
  •  Done
• There is only two sentences in the six paragraph, which is not enough.
  • Added the content to the end of the third paragraph on combat.
• Where does the word "Free Flow Combat" come from?
  • The game's term for entering an uninterrupted combat streak.
    • I know, but you need to mention its definition in the article, for readers who no nothing about the series and the combat system.
      •  Done Defined.
• I feel like that a subsection called "combat" can be created. It may feel a bit more organized this way.
  •  Not done Combat info is dispersed throughout the whole section, to where it is most applicable and flows with other content. Creating a subsection will interrupt that.
• uninterrupted attack adds to the player's combat score - what is combat score used for?
  • To unlock the double team takedowns.
• One such character, the Riddler - wikilink Riddler
  •  Done
• some collectables can be revealed by interrogating the Riddler's henchmen. - Any examples?
  • Reworded, because as it was was incorrect.
• used in solving the game's puzzles - Puzzles were not mentioned much in this article. Is there any more coverage on this?
  • Really it was just the winch stuff (which is mentioned) and getting Riddler trophies. I've added about the Riddler trophies.

Plot

• conquer the Riddler's (Wally Wingert) challenges - Isn't this a side-mission?
  • Yes, but how is it any different for the wording of Two-Face's or Penguin's description?
    • Because at the beginning of the sentence, it said "he must overcome". Players can choose not to complete these optional missions.
      • That is only for the Scarecrow one. he must overcome Scarecrow's (John Noble) plot to threaten Gotham City; he must dismantle the Penguin's (Nolan North) weapon dealing operation, etc.
• You need to deal with the two citation needed tags in the fourth paragraph of the character section.
  • Found one for Jack Ryder. Working on Killer Croc's.
  • So I haven't been able to find a source for Croc. Could we use the game itself, with the dialogue that references him, as a source?
• Source 42 is not reliable. It comes from a contributor from Forbes.
  • Disagree with this. All the Forbes sources are not unreliable.

Development

• downloadable content (including the story-based "Harley Quinn's Revenge" downloadable content) - The example is not necessary. Do not think that it is really closely related to this game's development.
  • Gave a reword to the content. It is, as that was the point Rocksteady kind of "severed ties" with Dini in terms of story plotting.
• This statement led to speculation that he would reprise his role as Batman in Arkham Origins, which was not the case - not really needed.
  • It is, because Origins was the only known Arkham game in development at the time. Add to indicate this.
• The quotes about the absence of multiplayer can be paraphrased.
  •  Done
• It can be summoned with a button press, and Batman can both enter and be ejected from it quickly, with ejection allowing the character to begin gliding instantly. - mentioned in the gameplay section already. Not necessary to mention it again here.
  •  Done
• considered moving around the city to be part of the game - Change "moving around the city" to "traversal". Sounds slightly better
  •  Done
• and allowing players to skip that would detract from the experience. - "that" is not necessary
  •  Not done Does not sound grammatically correct with out it. Because then you don't know what is being allowed to skip.
• The world's challenges were set out on the vertical and horizontal plane to discourage players from using only one form of movement, with the Batmobile providing a faster method for moving large distances - Does this means "vertical map-design"? "faster than" but what it is being compared to? Gliding?
  • Yes and yes. Added words to clarify.
• During early development, Rocksteady placed a prototype Batmobile to buildings were made taller to accommodate the vehicle's ejection ability can be moved to the second paragraph, which is talking about the city's redesign.
  •  Done
• The quote on "not building the biggest open world but the richest" can also be paraphrased.
  •  Done
• the team developed ideas for shops - What ideas?
• The music section's long quote can be paraphrased
  • I've reduced the quote.
• Tracklisting is redundant and violate WP:VGSCOPE#14. Do not really see the need of using {{Infobox Album}} here. It is not a film score.
  •  Done

Marketing/Release

• It needs to be rearranged. Every single information put in one single massive paragraph is not good. For instance, all the comic staffs can split into a new paragraph.
• I actually suggest you to merge the entire marketing section to the release section. It is up to you to decide whether to do so or not.
  • For the above two points, merged with the release section as a subsection and made a new one called "Comics" for all of that info.
• book writer Marv Wolfman, is scheduled to be released alongside the game. - tense. "It was released" alongside the game.
  •  Done
• On the delay - First delay, or the second delay?
  •  Done - first one.
• Hill and the Rocksteady team were caught off guard by the rating - You may need to mention who Hill is again. Readers may forget about him after reading these paragraphs
  • I added his first name, but do I need more?
• featuring her own weapons and abilities - Any example?
• The Quinn-centric DLC follows the character as she infiltrates - "Quinn-centric" is not necessary.
  • For the above two points, I reworded it all.
• The "Scarecrow Nightmare" DLC - The sources say that it is a PS4 exclusive, and it is not mentioned here.
  • Per the info in the second paragraph all retailer or console exclusive content was timed until "Fall 2015" which meant August or September 2015. So adding that is not necessarily factual, even though it is the only PS4 exclusive content that has not been released on Xbox One yet. Rocksteady has content planned until December for release, so if it doesn't come out by then, I will add that text.
• What is a "combat challenge maps". Has the gameplay section mentions this before?
  • The gameplay section doesn't mention this, but maybe it should. I'll investigate sourcing this here or in the gameplay section.
• where the player as Batman goes up against "legendary super-villains invading Gotham City, with new story arcs, missions and gameplay features" - can it be rephrased? It currently sounds like something extracted from a press release
  • ...It was. That's why I quoted it because there wasn't any other way I could think to word it to describe what it was, without using those exact words.
• due to "a lot of requests" - "a lot of requests" can be changed to something without the quotation mark.
• since it was not featured in the Tumbler pack, like the Keaton suit was in the 1989 pack - Do not think that it is necessary.
  • For the above two points, change the quote material, and the second point text explains why there were a lot of requests (versus just general fandom saying "I want the X suit!")

Reception

• The scores Arkham Knight received are high. What does this imply then?
• The reception section need to be completely rewritten. It should show whether the different aspects of the game is well-received or not instead of talking about reviewer's general impression on the game. Something like "The combat of the game is well-received. Game Informer called it "amazing" while IGN thought that it has lots of depth."
• Paragraphs are too long. I feel like that the paragraph are arranged in a random way.
  • To the above queries; I've reduced the content of many of the reviews listed in the section. However, after contemplating your second bullet, I disagree with the section needing to be completely rewritten. The method you suggested is one way to present the content, the way the article is now, another. I agree that there was a lot of material in this format, and I've done my best to cut down the info and move it in line with Batman: Arkham City#Reception, which is a FA.
• The fifth paragraph of the reception section is made up of quotes. Paraphrase some of them.
• He added, "It's a disappointment, to say the least, - The quote can be paraphrased to "He added that he expected more from the downloadable content, and hoped that the future ""Arkham Stories" have more content." or something similar.
  •  Done
• Do we really need the long quotes from Reiner's opinions on Batgirl: A Matter of Family?
  • Reduced.
• praise the side story involving Edward Burke - Who is Edward Burke?
  • Explained.
• I think that instead of "Batgirl: A Matter of Family" or "Catwoman's Revenge", it should be Batgirl: A Matter of Family and Catwoman's Revenge. Italic and no quotation marks.
  • I've always felt that DLC content was quoted material, not italics. I'm going to drop a quick note at the project talk to inquire.
• I suggest changing the order of how the subsection are arranged in the reception section. The major reception part, followed by the additional content reception, followed by technical issues, followed by sales, and followed by accolades.
  •  Done
• The part about technical issues should be in the release section. It is not really that closely related to reception
  • Well the two are sort of related. The bad reception to it helped bring to light the technical issues. I don't know if having two separate sections regarding the issue is necessary. As such, do you suggest it stay in reception or move to release?
• Receive plenty of nominations from this year's Golden Joystick Awards. You can have a look here
  •  Done
• The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, the second best selling game of 2015 behind Mortal Kombat X - It is too complicated. rephrase it to "beating the record previously held by The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Mortal Kombat X"
  • Witcher 3 and Mortal Kombat did not have the same record. Witcher 3 had the fastest selling game of 2015 record (which this game beat) and Mortal Kombat was the second best selling game of 2015 overall, which this game came in second.
• I thought that things like "report" should not be mentioned in the article. Unless Warner Bros. come out and admit that "we knew the PC version has problem and we still decided to push it out", it should not be included.

References

• The article says that source 15 comes from PlayStation Blog, but why it is a review from Hardcore Gamer?
  •  Done Don't know why that was.
• Source 23 has cite errors
  •  Done
• Source 32 and 115 (Forum source) are not reliable
  • Cinema Blend is reliable. The forum source is as well because it is release material from Warner Bros., not general users.
    • No, CinemaBlend is unreliable
      • That discussion was from 5 years ago at RSN. The site is a reliable source. See its About page.
        • Since no one has opposed, I will let this go.
• All sources from Forbes should be replaced. They come from contributors, and are not reliable.
  • As stated above in the plot section, I disagree with this as it is incorrect. They are all reliable.
    • That is not always the case. Forbes has contributor content that may not be reliable. You should find alternatives for them.
• Source 34, you should use the work field for The Escapist and Market for Home Computing and Video Games
  •  Done
• Would be great if the Twitter/Facebook sources are replaced
  • Don't need to be per WP:TWITTER.
• Wikilink Joystiq and AOL for source 67
  •  Done
• Not sure whether Gearnuke is reliable or not.

Images

• Wouldn't a gameplay screenshot of the "dual play" mechanic or the Batmobile gameplay better than the screenshot of the re-designed Gotham?
• Overall the article does not seem to have much visual appeal to readers. Would be great if more pictures are included.
• 82.3% copyright violation, though it is not much of a problem, since most words that get repeated are Arkham Knight and Batman.

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

It is a very well-written and comprehensive article, support by a lot of reliable sources. However, there is some issues that need to be dealt with, such as the problems with the reception section. There is also paragraphs and sentences that are way too long. Leaving it on hold for 7 days, and once all the issues are fixed, the article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The copyright vio thing also includes an article that is a copy-paste of this one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started going through your comments and responding to them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I've answered most of your comments except the ones directly related to the reception of the game (and a few sparse others I'm still working out). That is going to take me a bit to rework and cut down, and I just wanted to inform you that I know in the coming days I'm not going to have a lot of time to spend to this. Beyond some of the smaller issues I can possibly take care of, I know at the earliest I'll be able to give some full dedication to concentrating on that section will be Wednesday and Thursday of next week. Just wanted you to know so if you don't see my replies for a bit, you know I haven't abandoned this. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notifying @Favre1fan93: AdrianGamer (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes? I've answered I think pretty much every bullet point. I was waiting for your answers to some and/or additional comments. Sorry if that was unclear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I still think that you should replace all the Forbes sources but it is not really compulsory so I will let this go. I am satisfied with how you handle all the sections. However, before promoting, you need to deal with the [citation needed] tag in the character section. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So I asked you above, but will copy here, I have not been able to find a source to confirm Croc's appearance. Could I use the game itself? Croc himself doesn't speak, but in the bit that he appears, Joker mentions him. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess it is fine to do so. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Great! With that we are good to go! Batman: Arkham Knight is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for reviewing! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

minor corrections/doubts

is "scarecrow's nightmare" a DLC or a challenge map? that's not specified, or is wrong (as it says DLC in the article) please correct it in order to avoid confusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And another thing, acording to the source lex luthor and kate kane-batwoman- are referenced by means of easter eggs in the game but in th article says that they actually physicaly appear in the game wich is clearly wrong. this should-or better yet must, be changed

"Scarecrow's Nightmare" is DLC challenge maps. Wording for Lex and Kate Kane is fine. "Appearance" does not mean only physical. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews"?

There has been an ongoing battle for a while (but not a reversion war) with both registered and unregistered editor on whether this game, like Batman: Arkham Asylum, holds critical acclaim or was only met with positive reviews. So, which is it? Discuss. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Positive reviews" is the best terminology, because A) it has less than 90 on both GameRankings and Metacritic. Still good but not "critical acclaim"; and B) the PC version got far more critical reviews, particularly because of its technical mishaps. So that right there means it was not "critically acclaimed". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It is most appropriate to say critical acclaim for the console versions, because A) there are many other games that have the same rating on Metacritic or even lower that are cited as critical acclaim. B) So many publications praised the console versions, many saying it was one of the best games of the year and some saying the console generation. C) Metacritic should not be the ultimate deciding factor of whether or not it's critical acclaim, it should be looking at all publications as a whole. The console versions should say critical acclaim and the PC versions should say negative reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.78.244 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)