Talk:Dead Cells/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. If you don't hear back from me by Sunday next, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake. Can you take a look at this soon? If you're on a summer/winter Wikibreak, then by all means, you can do this later. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead as a whole is a little rambling. Could you be more concise and get it down to two or three paragraphs?
"At times..." - What times? It's specified in Gameplay it's from dropped enemies, but this implies an irregularity in drop rates.
- Fixed, thanks. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Production of Dead Cells began after Motion Twin planned development for a follow-up to their previous browser game Die2Nite, with Dead Cells acting as concept of their previous title focusing around constant combat." - This sentence is a little confusingly worded, particularly the second half. How was Dead Cells "acting as concept"?
- Removed the second half. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The producer and lead designer are mentioned in the Development section, but not in the infobox. Meanwhile the composer and engine mentioned in the infobox, while there's nothing about them in the text at all.

You've called it a "rogue-lite" in the lead, and a " 2D side-scrolling "roguevania", a combination of procedurally-generated roguelike games and action-exploration-based Metroidvania games." in the Gameplay. Which is it?
- An IP changed that to "rogue-lite". There was a dispute on the talk page about this, and consensus is to call it a roguelike-metroidvania and elaborate on the term in gameplay (I.e. "roguevania") CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, in the lead the Cells are referred to as "in-game currency", but aren't referred to or linked as such in Gameplay.
I'd put the Twitch info in another section (Release as a suggestion). It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the actual gameplay mechanics.
"...obtained during a playthrough.[6][2]" - Refs should be in numerical sequence.
"Levels are procedurally generated by the merging of predesigned sections in a random configuration, creating levels with many different placements of enemies and items." - Maybe substitute "areas" or "dungeons" or some other synonym in the second instance of "levels" to avoid repetition.

This whole section feels rather rambling, and at times contradicts itself (Prisoner described as mute, then later is referred to as saying something). This could be trimmed down to three or four paragraphs without losing anything significant and still communicating the story. As an example, the Queen of the Sea section is concise and understandable.
Not strictly necessary, but is there a citation usable to confirm the NPCs and story delivery methods?
Plot synopsis doesn't strictly need references.
"..., as well as alternative ending." - "alternative endings" or "an alternate ending".
- I completely rewrote the Plot section to be shorter and I addressed the other issues. Does it make more sense now? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use the same reference four times in the same paragraph, especially with no other reference to break up the sequence.
"Motion Twin's producer, Steve Filby, said that The Binding of Isaac was a significant influence, as there, the way the game proceeds "as entirely based on the choice of items that you get. That's the fun of the game."" - As a suggested alternative, "Motion Twin's producer Steve Filby cited The Binding of Isaac as a significant influence, highlighting its player-determined and item-driven gameplay."
- Implemented both changes CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection's got enough information to be its own section.
On that theme, the sentences should be condensed into three paragraphs at most. Having standalone sentences or one-to-two short sentences makes the section look choppy.
"Motion Twin stated they are planning on console" - This is a past event, so "were" is the word to use here.
- Condensed everything into three paragraphs. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section is problematic. I can see what's been gone for, but it's not well executed (example of a well-executed version here). Overall there are too many quotes, and too much repetition of "the game". I think this may need a top-down rewrite, but I've included other things I noticed below.
"Dead Cells received positive reviews from critics. The Xbox One version received "universal acclaim", and the PlayStation 4, PC, Nintendo Switch, and iOS versions received "generally favorable" reviews according to review aggregator website Metacritic." - Uncited.
- Cited in infobox. I don't think it needs to be cited twice. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar acclaim was foused around the game's constant action and combat.[51]" - This is one reviewer's opinion, were there others who agreed? Also "focused".
"lacking or unclear[54][55]" - Needs fullstop.
Note on sales. A recent discussion on the VG WikiProject has determined that only significant early milestones and the current major total are needed, otherwise it just reads like a hype list. You could rephrase the developer input as; 'Twim Motion" described sales of the Switch port as "insane"'.
In the Awards, those awards in text can be incorporated into the table. It just looks odd at the moment.

Is the second note important? It's uncited, and just looks like a piece of Wikia trivia.
- Removed CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You include a link in the page to a "Making of" from an acceptable source, but don't use it at all in the text. Why?
- That was User:Masem, actually. I'll take it out because it is not necessary at the moment. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GQ...is an odd choice, if it's the one I've linked, but acceptable I suppose. TheGamer, DoubleXP and whatoplay aren't confirmed as reliable.
I know it's the developer's Twitter account, but is there a third party confirmation?
- Could not find one. Reverted sales count back to that of the most recent reliable source Nintendo Life. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gamasutra should be marked as dead, as it now redirects to Game Developer. All Gamasutra links should be archived if possible.
- I used IAbot to save the sources. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references as a whole need filling out properly in places (multiple with missing authors and/or unlinked websites/publishers, some with missing dates), and archiving wherever possible.

@CollectiveSolidarity: That's all the stuff I noticed. Putting this article On Hold. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake I have rewritten the Reception and Plot sections, condensed everything, checked all the refs, and archived them. Anything else I need to do? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]