Talk:Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I happy to see this little game getting the attention it deserves. I never did finish this game, but that's probably because I tried to play the game on the hardest difficulty without alerting any guards, which is almost impossible. I should go back and finish this one. But I digress, I'll be taking a look at this article, seems to be in good condition. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for taking this article, Famous Hobo. I look forward to seeing it! Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Have you started the review? I've changed a few minor things since you took it but nothing major. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies for the delay. I'm terrible when it comes to these reviews. Anyway, let's get started

Lead

First off, in the infobox, who published all the other versions of Monaco? If it was Pocketwatch Games, then they should be credited. The same goes for the first sentence in the lead, "Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine is a stealth action video game developed by Pocketwatch Games with the Xbox Live Arcade version being published by Majesco Entertainment. Who published the other versions. It just seems weird to only mention the XBLA version.
Done. Reworded the lead and fixed the infobox. Is it better now?
The gameplay in Monaco consists of players controlling one of eight characters, all of whom have their own advantages, such as the Hacker who can put viruses onto the security systems, and the Cleaner who can put guards to sleep. The game can be played with up to 4 players who all control different characters while they partake in heists and robberies in many different locations. You should start this paragraph by saying that the game revolves around heist sequences. The way the paragraph begins may amke a casual reader think it's an open world game with role playing elements, being able to choose one of eight classes (which it kind of is, but you get the point). Simply just switch the first two sentences.
Done.
The main differences between single-player and multiplayer are that in single-player, any character can be used once it's unlocked, and that in multiplayer when a player dies, they must be revived before the level can be completed. How does being able to choose a character once it's unlocked compare to having to revive another player? It's a rather strange comparison.
Changed so that it only lists the revival feature. I'm not sure how I could word the other bit in.
Andy Nguyen, whom Andy Schatz met while he was looking for playtesters, quit his job at Citibank to help with the development of Monaco. This doesn't explain Nguyen's role in the development of Monaco. The infobox lists Nguyen as a designer, but the development section also says he was hired to work booths.
Done. Reworded the lead and a bit of the development.
The game received high praise from reviewers and won two awards at the 2010 GDC Independent Games Festival. The reviewers highly praised the cooperative gameplay but said the single-player was less fun due to there being less things to do. Just a minor issue, I don't like seeing "high praise" used in two consecutive sentences. Perhaps change the first instance to "The game was positively received by reviewers..." Besides, while the co-op gameplay may have been the highlight for most reviewers, the game itself only received "generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic.
Done.

Gameplay

I'm sorry, but the silhouette pictures have got to go. One, they really serve no purpose for the reader. The gameplay image is important, as it allows the reader to visualize what is going on, but most casual readers won't necessarily care what the characters look like. Two, the gameplay and the silhouette pictures squish the first paragraph, and it kind of looks ugly. Finally, while the silhouettes may be freely licensed images, but that doesn't mean they need to be thrown into the article. Okay, maybe the third point wasn't that good, but I would still like to see the images removed. Maybe you can make a case for adding one of the images to show of the art style in the development section, but that section doesn't talk about the art style.
Done
The players, which there can be up to 4, controls one of eight characters, all of which have different traits and advantages... Why not just say "Up to four players can control one of eight characters, all of which have different traits and advantages..."?
Done
The Locksmith can open doors twice as fast as the other characters, the Cleaner can put guards to sleep, the Lookout is able to see enemies that aren't in the player's direct line of sight, the Pickpocket owns a monkey which runs around collecting coins, the Mole can dig holes through walls and takes less time to open vents, the Gentleman has the ability to temporarily change appearance, making the player less detectable to enemies, the Redhead can charm enemies into not attacking them and make characters follow them, and the Hacker hs the ability to upload computer viruses to the security systems, resulting in them shutting off temporarily. Whoa, massive run on sentence. Obviously it's important to list there roles, but do so with semicolons. See the characters and setting section of Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward for an idea of what to do.
Done

Development

When he pitched it to Microsoft Game Studios for the second time, it was turned down. After these events, Schatz got the impression that the game was not going to be released on Xbox 360. Delink Xbox 360, as you already linked it in the first paragraph.
Done
Monaco was released onto Microsoft Windows on April 24 2013. Three months later, on 3 July 2013 the Mac version was released[15] and later in 2013, on May 10, the Xbox 360 version was released. First, May does not come after July. Also all three release dates are off, choose either month day year or day month year.
Done. Aha, I don't know how I messed the May bit up.

Music

I know Czar already discussed with you about whether this needs its own section, but I personally feel it's not important. First, You already mentioned that Austin Wintory composed the soundtrack and that he had previously on Flow and Journey in the development section. You also already mentioned pianos in the development section. I understand that a number of outlets made entire articles about the game's music, but I still feel it can be merged with the development section, though I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Done Merged it into development. It might need to be shortened a bit, what's your opinion?

Reception

It's always nice to know how many copies the game sold, and I found this short article that Joystiq published (now Engadget) about the low sales on the Xbox 360 version. I feel this would go well right after the opening sentence "Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine received positive reception from critics, garnering "generally favorable reviews" for both the PC and Xbox 360 release." Something about the game sold poorly on the Xbox 360, and Shatz felt it was because of the weak demo and the last minute delay.
Done. Added a sentence to the reception.

References

Ref 18 is missing the author, Brenna Hillier
Not done. I can't find where Breanna Hillier is mentioned in Ref18.

Response

@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the review. I've responded to all of the things you mentioned above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you work fast. Anyway, I fixed up the reference author as you'll see in my edit. I reread through the article, and it looks great, and a good job with merging the music section into the development section. This article is definitely in GA worthy condition, though I did notice that in the main text you use month day year for dates, but in the refs you use day month year. Not something that's particularly troubling, but just something that you may want to consider fixing in the near future. With all that being said, let's put this review to rest. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]