Talk:Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one on and add feedback when I can! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, life is getting in the way! It's interesting to work on this as I remember writing quite a lot about Rise of Nations and learning about 38 Studios. It's been a long time since I've played KOA so forgive my unfamiliarity with the game.

Here's some initial comments, but are by no means exhaustive. As a caveat, I understand these are a mixture of comments germane to the GAN and personal preferences. Please feel welcome to agree or disagree on proposed changes and happy to chat about anything. I will continue to work on providing feedback when I can.

Review

Lead

• developed by Big Huge Games, and' -> comma isn't needed
  • Done.
• The lead is generally meant to be accessible for players so minimising in-universe jargon such as the Fate Weave may be helpful unless
  • Done.
• Gameplay has the Fateless One -> try to describe gameplay outside of an in-universe context i.e. Gameplay consists of players exploring the game world of Amalur...
  • Done.
• Reckoning was intended to introduce the Amalur universe -> for clarity, this means developers intended to launch a franchise with the release of the game?
  • Rewritten for clarity.

Gameplay

Synopsis

• the world of Amalur; the game's events -> suggest replacing the semicolon as 'with' as the two parts of the sentence don't really flow from one another.
  • Done.

Development

• In different interviews, the game's design... -> This is a little confusing. Is this saying Nelson, Rolston and Frazier were attributed with the concept for the game, or that these figures lead development? If there's a disagreement between GameBanshee and IGN, more sourcing may be needed to confidently point out there is a disagreement between interviews.
  • Tried rewriting.

Release

• A few of the initial sentences could flow on i.e. "Reckoning was confirmed upon the commencement of production in 2007, and announced under its..." In line with this there's a lot of these opportunities to work on general flow in the article.
  • Did some minor edits to improve flow.

• describeing -> describing
  • Done.

• What was the reception of the downloadable content? There seems to be several WP:VG/S reviews. I'm not sure what the given approach is where DLC is not independently notable and best embedded in the article. At any rate it would be helpful to tease out the reception from some of the sources.
  • I can try. I didn't want to bloat things.

Reception

• The sales section hints at an interesting angle to the article that may be missing: to what extent did the terms of the 38/EA deal and underperformance of Reckoning contribute to the closure of the studio? The mismatch between the 38 and EA projections seems due to EA having more "conservative" estimates of the project's success. The WPRI source notes there were uneven royalties and a fairly large loan provided by EA to fund the project - this is not mentioned in the article. Are there any sources that more directly draw this inference?
  • I added some more detail regarding the cancelled sequel, partly to introduce 38 Studio's closure. Consequently put in a bit more substantiated detail surrounding sales factors. 38 Studios collapsed more because of the Rhode Island loan and the rhetoric that flew around that, which is covered in the 38 Studios article.

• I think it's common practice with the review template to confine the listed reviews to ten, although the remainder can be embedded in the article. As all are WP:VG/S it's really a matter of personal preference to omit which reviews seem less notable. This could be condensed in the same summary approach you took in the paragraph on reception for Re-Reckoning.
  • I've cut down to ten reviews in the box.

• It looks like Fatesworn received no other real WP:VG/S reviews. If it did, it might be good to add to lend less credence to the viewpoint of one review.
  • I just cut it.

Re-Reckoning

• Not necessarily a call you need to make, but it's looking like Re-Reckoning could be its own article if there is enough significant coverage. See the category of video game remakes to get a feel for if this is viable. This doesn't really affect the GAN as all the key aspects of the remake seem to be there.

@Vrxces: Done my best to address the major points you've raised so far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience - life is doing its thing. I'll try and return to this shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces: Addressed your further points as best I can. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, I think that's all the broad issues with the article that stand out. A spot check of some of the sources didn't produce anything out of the ordinary. All in all this is a very well written article that conforms with the GA standard. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.