Talk:Rayman (video game)/GA2

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

Nominator: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do this in the next few days, probably tomorrow. Please nudge if I haven't done anything in a week. IceWelder [✉] 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Infobox

• The infobox (and lead) normally shouldn't include any sources. Please move them into the body where appropriate.  Done
• Some of the release dates appear to be unsourced, crucially also the very first one. Please provide sources for all dates listed.  Done
• Listing four platforms as the title for the collapsible list is a bit measling, especially when both lists are collapsed. Please only use one platform in the title.  Done
• For collapsible list titles, use {{nobold}} instead of |titlestyle=. The latter does not render correctly in Wikipedia's new native dark mode.  Done
• Are the GBC/GBA version ports or adaptations? In the former case, the developers of these versions should not be in the infobox, or at most in a footnote.  Done

Lead

• Is "platform" or "platformer" the preferred name for the genre? I would tend to say it's the latter, but whichever you decide on, it should be used consistently throughout the article.  Done
• "published by Ubi Soft for MS-DOS, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn, and PlayStation" – Listing the platforms here is likely redundant since Ubi Soft published all versions of the game. Instead, use the development/release summary to mention platforms the game appeared on.  Done
• "The gameplay involves rescuing Electoons and gaining new abilities throughout the game." – Electoons were already mentioned in the prior sentence. The gameplay summary should be expanded a bit so that the reader gets the general gist of what is happening. The lead is quite short at the moment, so there is ample room for more text.  Done
• The plot summary here could also include the minimal detail of Rayman's motivations.  Done

• Is Gérard Guillemot's involvement relevant enough for the lead? He is mentioned only once in the body, and not in the role mentioned up here.  Done
• "Ancel pitched a demo for French software developer Lankhor before being hired at Ubi Soft." → "Ancel pitched a demo to the French developer Lankhor before being hired by Ubi Soft."  Done
• "In later development, Ubi Soft decided to make the game a launch title for the North American and European releases of the PlayStation as a way to compete with Japanese platform games." → "Rayman was first released on the Atari Jaguar on [DATE], and Ubi Soft decided to make it a launch title for PlayStation in North American and Europe to compete with Japanese platform games." Obviously, this hinges on whether the Atari Jaguar was indeed the first platform to release. According to some sources, the game premiered on the PlayStation. Please take your time to find the correct release order.  Done
• Surely there is a little bit more about the development that is important enough for the lead?  Done
• Also at this point, you could mention the various platforms it was released on.  Done

• "with praise going towards its visuals ... The graphics received mixed responses" – These conflict.  Done
• "who wrote that the game was showing off the Atari Jaguar's capabilities." – The placement makes this out to be negative/divisive, but it reads as a positive. If the opinions were mixed, this should mention what caused them to be mixed.  Done
• Platform mentions should be removed here, since they new should have appeared in the prior paragraph.  Done
• There should be a brief summary of criticisms as well.  Done
• "Due to its commercial success, the game spawned the Rayman franchise" – The series was already mentioned before, so it doesn't need to be repeated here.  Done

Gameplay

• Please find a way to separate "side-scrolling" and "platform game" per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.  Done
• "that displays a two-dimensional graphics engine" – It doesn't really display an engine, but this fragment is probably unnecessary anyways since you already precede this statement with explaining that the game is side-scrolling (without being 2.5D).  Done
• "incorporating hand-drawn animation" – Specifics about how the graphics were created should be in the Development section, not here?  Done
• "and multi-layered worlds with enemies" – What does "multi-layered" mean in this case? That it has a parallax effect? If this is just a graphical quirk and doesn't affect the gameplay, it shouldn't be here.  Done
• "that allows him to punch enemies from a distance" – I assume punching is Rayman's default mode of attack? The base mechanics (traversal, enemies, combat, level targets) have not been mentioned thus far, but they should be among the first things to state.

I couldn't find a way to mention (traversal, enemies and combat) in the first paragraph in the gameplay section other than in sentence 3 and 4.

• "Other abilities include a grabbing fist and the ability to hang on platforms." – Are these any different from the previous abilities? Why are they in a separate list?  Done

It's to avoid a redundant sentence list of abilities.

• "If the player loses five of their lives"; assuming the player only has five lives in total, this should read as "If the player loses their five lives". Additionally, the concept of lives has not been introduced yet. Do you lose a life for every hit (a hit point) or only after several hits?  Done
• "Hidden in various levels, the player can interact with The Magician" – A dangling participle!  Done
• "where they either earn Tings" – What are Tings? This is the only place they're mentioned.  Done
• "or an extra live" → "or an extra life".  Done
• "as long as they finish the level in the limited time given" → "if they finish the level in a given time".  Done

Plot

• "The people living in the valley" – "the valley" suggests it is a specific valley. Is there something that should be said about it, such as its name?  Done
• "in Rayman's world" – The plot is already understood to be in-universe, so I assume this can be removed.  Done
• "thanks to the Great Protoon" – Is there any information on who/what the Great Protoon is and how it achieved this peace?  Done
• "to use its power all for himself and spread havoc and chaos" → "and uses its power to wreak havoc".  Done
• Please explain what Electoons are. Are they inhabitants of this world?  Done
• "scatter over the world" → "scatter across the world".  Done
• "Betilla the Fairy, a guardian of the Great Protoon, battles Mr. Dark to protect the Great Protoon and the Electoons, but unfortunately fails and asks Rayman for help by assigning him the task to rescue the Electoons and defeat Mr. Dark." → "Betilla the Fairy, having been defeated by Mr. Dark as she tried to protected the Great Protoon, asks Rayman to help rescuing the Electoons and defeating Mr. Dark."  Done
• "Betilla frequently interacts with Rayman as needed to give him additional magical powers along his journey." – Is this relevant to the plot?  Done

• "After he rescues all of the Electoons, Rayman faces Mr. Dark, who attacks with various disorienting spells. Rayman arrives in a hall, where Mr. Dark traps him with walls of fire. At the last moment, the Electoons restore Rayman's ability to punch after Mr. Dark disabled it, with the latter continuing the fight by transforming himself into a hybrid of the bosses previously fought by Rayman." → "After rescuing all Electoons, Rayman battles Mr. Dark, who suppresses Rayman's punching ability and traps him between walls of fire. At the last moment, the Electoons restore Rayman's powers, such that he defeats Mr. Dark."  Done
• "Rayman rescues Betilla" – Why was Batilla in danger?  Done

Development

• Since this section also covers the release aspect, consider calling it "Development and release".  Done

Development – Conception

• Please avoid false titles.

For this it's just that many of the sources here such as almost all of the magazines' articles don't have/seems to have an actual article title,

• In the image caption, "(2007)" should probably read something along the lines of "(pictured in 2007)".  Done
• "in order to follow" → "to pursue".  Done
• "During development, he created a demo of the game for French software developer Lankhor." – This partially conflicts with the lead, which suggested that he sent in an existing demo, not that he made one specifically for Lankhor. Please clarify. The "During development" bit is redundant since the context of this sentence is the development.  Done
• Having just checked the source for the above statement, the timeline is obviously mixed up a bit. Ancel did create some demo for Lankhor, but not of Rayman. The source says he did so when he was 17 (i.e. 1989–1990) but only resumed developing Rayman in 1992.  Done

• "Hascoet recalled" – Please use special characters consistently.  Done
• "recalled the pair presenting" – Who is "the pair"? Ancel and Houde?  Done
• "Ancel said that "[t]hat's when everything changed."" – This feels like a filler and doesn't really add any information.  Done

• "15 million" should be separated by a non-breaking space.  Done
• "Founded in 1994 as Ubi Pictures, the studio became Ubisoft Montpellier." – Having written the Ubisoft Montpellier article, I know this is true, but you'll have to either add appropriate sources here or remove this segment.  Done
• I briefly glanced over the Game Informer source and noticed that tells of 100 people working on this game. This seems rather crucial and makes me wonder why this isn't mentioned in the article.  Done

Development – Design

• I'm fairly certain that Rayman does not have any ray tracing. The character may be named after the rendering technique, but the 60 Hz animation style is based solely on the rendering tools like in 3ds Max. These thoughts should be separated in the text.  Done
• Speaking of which, "60 Hz" should also be separated by a non-breaking space.  Done
• Since it appears that large parts of this text were written by various people of the years before you stepped in, I highly encourage you to re-read relevant sources to check for errors or find information presently missing from this article, thereafter rewriting potentially incorrect parts of the article.  Done

• "Steible drew rough models" – So Steible was also hired by Ubi Soft? This wasn't mentioned before. Perhaps you could use this source to fill some gaps.  Done
• "once the attitudes has been worked on" – What "attitudes" are meant here?  Done
• "for It to be scanned and reworked on a computer" → "for them to be digitised".  Done

Development – Completion

• "Ancel initially produced Rayman for the Atari ST and worked alone on every aspect of the game." – Him working on the game alone stands in stark contrast to the previous sentence. Is this in the incorrect order?  Done
• At the current stage, I believe the sectioning is a major hindrance to establishing a coherent timeline. I strongly recommend either reducing it to two (Ancel's background / the proper development under Ubi Soft) or not using any sub-sections.  Done
• "However, in 1993, Nintendo cancelled the system" – In particular, Nintendo cancelled the peripheral; "system" may refer to the SNES itself.  Done
• I'm having a hard time believing the claim by Apogee Entertainment that Ancel pitched the game there after 1993, since he was already working for Ubi Soft, an established publisher, with a set budget. It relies solely on a primary source from Apogee 30 years after the fact, so I'd rather see it removed.  Done
• The quote "the thing that has not changed in video games is the way that it is changing all the time" is again a nothingburger, especially since you go on to summarize it in the same sentene.  Done

• "Yves Guillemot noted that the PlayStation version of Rayman is a way of "beat[ing] Japan on platforming games"" – You're mixing a direct quote with incorrect appllied indirect quoting here. It would be better to just settle on something like "Yves Guillemot sought Rayman on the PlayStation to outclass competing platformers from Japan".  Done
• "Ancel recalled that the number of developers working on the game began to increase." – But not at the very end of the development, right?  Done

Reception

• Per WP:VG/REC, star-based scores should be converted to numbers.  Done
• I tend to put sales last in a reception section, or within a separate "Sales" subsection. This is optional, but I think it would flow much better.

Comment: I would do either one of these suggestions however, the information about the sales is too small be a subsection and also I prefer the sales to be first in a reception section.

• "as Eurogamer felt it was "no shame in admitting" that it was an acclaimed platformer" – Peacock wording and it doesn't really fit in with the sales numbers, so I think it should be removed.  Done

• "critically acclaimed" may be a bit much if it generally got around 75%. You could use the Eurogamer source from above to just summize that it got positive reviews.  Done
• Wording like "to date" must always be relative to the contemporary context but here could be confused as meaning "up to the current time". Please rephrase such instances.  Done
• "Next Generation, though noting a lack of original gameplay elements, agreed that" – With whom did Next Generation agree?  Done
• "most visually appealing games yet" → "most visually appealing games of the time".  Done
• "the like of Disney animated films" → "the likes of Disney animated films".  Done

• "Many reviewers have commented" → "Many reviewers commented".  Done
• "Electronic Gaming Monthly assessed that" – This suggests an objective finding, but the following sentence expresses an opinion.  Done

• "Reviewers wrote mixed reviews of the game's graphics." → "Reviewers raised differing opinions on the game's graphics."  Done
• This is highly optional, but I like to try to resolve the pseudonyms of some of the authors of old magazines. For example, "Scary Larry" was the pseudonym of Lawrence Neves.  Done
• "kiddie-oriented" doesn't sound too encyclopedic.  Done
• "solid game speed even on low-end PCs" – So, optimization?  Done
• "multitude of challenges" probably doesn't need to be quoted; it could be rephrased as "challenge variety" or something.  Done
• "[w]ith its vast color palette" – Minor capitalization changes in quotes generally do not need to be noted, and it reads much better without the brackets.  Done
• Furthermore, when a quote does not pertain to an entire sentence, the punctuation should be outside the quotation marks (MOS:LQ).  Done

Legacy

• "later spawned a franchise that spawned several sequels" – Avoid repeating "spawned".  Done
• "would influence" → "influenced".  Done
• "would be ported" → "was ported".  Done
• Also link porting.  Done
• The PlayStation Classic is probably not important enough to mention two full dates. Just "December 2018" as the release date should suffice.  Done
• "The titular character Rayman would become one of the most recognizable video game characters" – As of when? You only cite a 1995 source here, so the claim seems doubtful.  Done
• "and discussions were made about Rayman as the mascot for Atari Jaguar." → "and Rayman was in discussion to become the Atari Jaguar mascot."  Done

• "has been ported" → "was ported".  Done
• The Next Generation quote should be reduced to remove statements on gameplay elements not fit for a reception section.  Done
• This would also be the ideal place to state and cite the developer of this release.  Done

• "Rayman also inspired a fan remake under the title Rayman Redemption by Finnish game developer Ryemanni, which features new worlds, levels, and minigames compared to the original." → "{{xt|Rayman Redemption, a fan remake by the Finnish developer Ryemanni, features additional worlds, levels, and minigames.  Done
• "It was hosted in Game Jolt, and the development initially began three years before its release for the Rayman series' 25th anniversary." → "After three years in development, it was released via Game Jolt for Rayman's 25th anniversary."  Done
• "The game was made as "a reimagination of the original Rayman from 1995."" – This has already been established an can be removed.  Done
• "Kotaku also praised how Ryemanni decided not to just recreate the original game but also added new additions to it." → "Kotaku also praised the added content."  Done

References

• What makes Vidgames.com, Gamer Info, Unseen64, Retro Collect, and Vrutal reliable sources?  Done

Retro Collect is a reliable source according to [1], [2] I guess

Gamer Info and Unseen64 are replaced with better sources. The Vrutal source is basically Kotaku which is a situational source. And Vidgames.com may have reviews however, it pretty old website and I'm unsure whether or not, it could be reliable or not.

• DualShockers is noted by WP:VG/S as a low-quality source that should be replaced/removed.  Done
• When citing foreign-language source, please use |title= |language= |trans-title= constructs, instead of merely translating the title to English  Done.

Other

• Eliminate duplicate links (script).  Done
• I refrained from marking every grammatical error separately (especially since this seemed to drive the previous review's failure). Please re-read the article and correct obvious mistakes. I can help out with a quick copyedit at the end, and otherwise the Guild of Copy Editors is specialized for such work.

---

@NatwonTSG2: This concludes my initial review. Sorry it took so long! Feel free to strike through or reply to individual comments as you work on them. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you advice me to clear up tons of ideas and fixes which most of them seems unnecessarily and also I already send a request to the Guild of Copy Editors which was during the article's first GA review so. NatwonTSG^TALK 20:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that none of the changes I requested are unnecessary. (If you feel differently on some points, please let me know.) The state of the article at the time of the review was very rought in terms of accuracy, sourcing, grammar, and style. I realize that writing good articles is a lot of work, so I'd rather provide many addressable points that allow us to get the article into shape. Vaguely saying "not good" and failing the nomination is, I feel, not productive.

That there already was a GOCE review is curious; while there certainly were edits, they appear to have missed large issues and the editor also forgot to tag the talk page appropriately.

Once you feel the article is ready for re-review, please let me know. If you need help with any writing aspects, I can help out as well. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:IceWelder Hi! I've changed the sales source with a different source. I think that's what it says? Timur9008 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@IceWelder: I feel like this article is ready for re-review so NatwonTSG^TALK 16:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! I'll have another good look over the weekend. IceWelder [✉] 19:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There are still some issues that stand out:

• Many of the release dates remain unsourced. All dates listed in the infobox should be mentioned verbatim in the body and have a citation to a reliable source.
• In the above list, you tagged altering the sections in the Development section as done, but the same subsections still persist in the article. As I noted, the section currently tries to awkwardly break apart an otherwise quite linear timeline.
• Mentions of Steible as an early contributor and Lankhor vanished from the Development section but remain in the lead. Was this a concious choice? If you have good information at your disposal, you should use it.
• If you wish to keep the sales inside the Reception section, I would highly recommend moving them to the end of that section to improve the flow. Usually, the quality of a game is what drives the sales, so this would also be the correct chronological order.
• When you say that Vrutal "is basically Kotaku", do you mean in terms of content or as in editors, publisher, or something in that direction? If it there is no glaring indicator for reliability, it should either be replaced or vetted at WT:VG/S.

IceWelder [✉] 16:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For the new issues:

• All of the release dates are sourced and mentioned in the body in some form because listing all of them would be redundant.
• It's a bit hard for me to figure out the game's development most accurate timeline and for the sections, I merged two of my old sections into one and renamed them all.
• Mentions of Steible as an early contributor and Lankhor in the lead section are vanished.
• The sales in the reception section are moved at the end of the section.
• And for Vrutal, I do mean in terms of content, and for the editors, I do found some are annoymous and others use their nicknames.

NatwonTSG^TALK 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The way you describe Vrutal doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and to a casual observer it looks like a low-quality meme site. I also noticed that GamerInfo.NET has been restored. I put up both for discussion at WT:VG/S. IceWelder [✉] 06:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So far, both have only received negative-leaning feedback. Even prior to a formal closure of those discussions, I'd recommend that they are removed/replaced with better alternatives. IceWelder [✉] 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As promised, I have performed a thorough copyedit of the article. I am generally happy with the current state apart from some unsourced dates (which I have now commented out) and some missing platforms, namely: Windows (1995), Windows Mobile (2002), Nintendo 3DS (2012), Android (2016), and Wii U (2017) [according to MobyGames]. Also, I'm sure there is a lot more information that can still be added from the sources already used, the sources listed at the top of the talk page, and sources that have not been uncovered yet. In light of the time we have already spent on this review, however, I decided to actually  pass the article in its current state on the condition that it is still improved on from here on out. The potential for this article is immense, even if the current text does not give off this impression. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:29, 31 August 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.