Talk:God of War (2018 video game)

Metacritic statement

Please follow MOS:VG's suggestions on how to state the overall critic reception. It's directly attributable and sourcable, while any generic statements of "Received critical acclaim" are not. Yes, it is true there may be reviews that don't represent universal acclaim, but we are not suggesting otherwise, simply denoting the reception as categorized (and directly attributed to) Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• We also should not be linking the score directly in the lead, as we already should not be mentioning it in the reception section either, per "Reduce minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information" in the MOS:VG. Not sure why @JDC808: is claiming other FAs do it, and if they do, they should be changed to follow the MOS. There are also other issues with his preferred version of the lead, such as WP:GAMECRUFT exact naming of his new weapon and separating a non-used citation in its own section (just cite something with it in prose, having it there as "further reading" is not that much more helpful than adding it to the talk page as a ref improvement link). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This section was specifically about the Reception section itself. I've no strong opinion on the lead at this time. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, there can be exceptions, which is stated at the top of the MOS. I haven't edited the page since my last revert of Dissident93, but since then, the Reception now says "God of War received "universal acclaim" according to review aggregator Metacritic, making it the highest-scoring game in the franchise." Four other games in the franchise also have universal acclaim according to Metacritic. The score here in this case brings sense to that statement of why this one has the highest score in the franchise. Also, I wasn't "stealthy undoing it in hopes [you] wouldn't notice" as you said in one of your edits. It didn't alert you because there were other intermittent edits that were also reverted. In regards to "other FAs", I wasn't specifically talking about them including the score in the lead (though the edits in that regards that have been made since my last edit look good). That comment was mainly about the lead in general in how it was structured (and those other FAs I was referring to are all the previous games in this series, which I worked extensively on to bring them to FA). --JDC808 ♫ 01:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There can be exceptions to every guideline, what makes this game special? Explain why it's universally acclaimed, not just a score and where it ranks among other highly reviewed games. All of this Metacritic cruft was removed from the Breath of the Wild article for many of the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also referred to...

Also about the lead (CC @Dissident93, why does the first sentence mention the supposed common name of God of War? It puts a lot of emphasis right away, with seven references. Regardless of WP:REFLEAD, those references are instances of the game being referred to as such, there not sources about the name. And to compare with other FAs, Grand Theft Auto V doesn't mention GTA V. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure, I wanted to remove that as well (or at least put it in a note), but couldn't think of how to improve it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Both those names seem to be used fairly commonly (God of War 4 more so), so I think it's reasonable to include them in the opening sentence. But the references are excessive and disruptive. Lizard (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I've been told, if there's an "also referred to", it supposed to be referenced by at least three sources. --JDC808 ♫ 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems oddly arbitrary. Is there a guideline that says that? Lizard (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about a guideline. This is the edit where I was told that. --JDC808 ♫ 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my edit that JDC808 linked, I don't recall my thinking then, but I would assume I meant along the lines of making sure we had multiple sources referring to the game as such, and it was not simply a one off thing. A WP:CITEBUNDLE might be appropriate here as a styling alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree it's helpful to have multiple sources to confirm it isn't a one-off thing, but going back to what Soetermans said: these are merely instances of the game being referred to such names as opposed to sources explicitly stating the game is sometimes referred to as these names. So we're actually dabbling in WP:SYNTH here. Lizard (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this be added to the category "Video games set in Norway"?

Just wondering. --SiberianDante (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically ancient Norway (if there's a CAT for that), but don't see why not. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sales figure

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/05/25/god-of-war-sales-top-5-million-in-the-first-month

Can the source be equal to 5M retail sales without any DLs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.173.103 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It can be, but that source does not break it down. --JDC808 ♫ 02:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@JDC808: Please note there's been similar querying of the sales and mentioning of the "DLs" on the God of War franchise page on 06/01/2019. Half the IP address (180.217.167.74) is identical to the one used by the above anonymous user, so I suspect it could be the same person. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: There seems to be a valid concern here that the sources for 5 million units sold are not explicitly retail only, and so adding 2 million digital sales from a second source (A different source altogether) may be artificially inflating. The safest bet here is to say "over 5 million", with the sales section noting "at least 2.1 million digital", unless someone can concretely prove the 5 million and 2.1 million are separate distinct figures with no overlap. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I can secede to that until we can get a concrete source breaking down the exact numbers. I wish Sony would just put out another chart breaking down the units sold for each game like they did back in 2012 (although that didn't include Betrayal, but that's beside the point). --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Status as first AAA game with a one-shot camera

Doesn't Portal also have a one-shot camera? It would load the next level while you were in the elevator, making it appear seamless. Is Portal not a AAA game? GrayWolf512 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it does, it is not noted in its article, and a quick google search provided no results. --JDC808 ♫ 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about plot

Hi there. I was looking at this line, from the Plot section: As such, Kratos returns home to unearth his old weapon, the Blades of Chaos and is haunted by Athena's spirit. Should "weapon" be in the plural? If they are the Blades of Chaos, he must have at least two (one per hand); so that's two weapons. If you reply, please ping me. Thanks! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: It's a weird thing. Technically, the Blades of Chaos (or whichever blades we happen to be talking about in the series) is composed of two blades. The reason the singular "weapon" is used is because we're looking at the Blades as being one unit instead of two separate weapons, for example, him wielding the Blades of Chaos and the Leviathan Axe at the same time. This was something that was brought up to me in an FAC on one of the previous games. --JDC808 ♫ 20:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me (and pinging me). I'm currently working on an FAC, but after that, if you're willing to give this another shot at FAC, I'll be happy to go over the article and try and make some improvements. It’s very strongly written, but I do generally agree with some of the criticisms brought up in the first attempt (I had a look last night). If you want to work with me, I'd love to collaborate. Otherwise, that's okay — happy to let you maintain this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Yeah, that would be great. I had been meaning to get back to trying to get this to FAC again, and address some lingering issues from the previous review, just hadn't gotten around to it for various reasons (including forgetting to). --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)