Jump to content

Talk:Saints Row: The Third/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 07:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You got this one up to scratch pretty fast.

  • The Metacritic thing again. Per the discussion I started at Talk:MoS I'll let it go, but I do think per LEADCITE you should place the footnote in the lead, because you're treating "generally favorable" as a quote. Lead could use a little more beyond that about the critical reception in the way of a sentence or two.
  • The lead states that there is multiplayer in the game. That's only true to the extent that there's two-player co-op and since co-op is already mentioned, I'd just lose multiplayer. Readers would assume that means competitive multiplayer, which creates some redundancy with Gameplay explaining that there isn't.
  • Any reason you've taken out the Plot section? I'm neutral about them as well, but this game has enough of a cinematic narrative to have its plot summarised.
  • Following on from my second point, Development could use some more on why Volition removed multiplayer. I remember them talking about it in the Game Informer unveiling. Can you get your hands on it? I'm sure I have it saved somewhere if you can't.
  • You're missing wikilinks for Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto clone. Also, in Reception, it would be more helpful to the non-player to cover the game's comparison to GTA with a little more clarity. The reader doesn't know why "Grand Theft Auto IV's serious turn let the Saints Row series be a "gleeful silly sandbox game". Even though you have some mention in Gameplay, it isn't clear that reviews were marked by GTA comparisons. Something along the lines of "Critics likened the game's format to that of Grand Theft Auto's" in the first paragraph of Reception would do. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one thing to add myself: did Volition ever confirm the first Enter The Dominatrix announcement really was an April Fools joke? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it was getting a lot of hits for being free with XBL's Games with Gold though the article was shitty, so I just went with it and got carried away—now it's 100% new. I think I've addressed all of the above. Since none of the coverage was more descriptive about the plot, I didn't find the minutiae worth including. If you see aspects of the plot that would be worth including, let me know why you think so (or perhaps you can point me to RS that also think so). I don't have the April 2011 Game Informer issue, if you have a copy. I didn't finish wikifying since things were still moving around and I didn't want to redo work, but let me know if you see something I should address. Re: April Fool's—I'm not sure, but it's up to what the RS say anyway czar ♔ 08:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good. Some more thoughts:

  • Though the new concision is great, your cuts to Gameplay have removed some information I think should be mentioned. Some explanation of the open world design would be helpful, like how I have GTA V. If you can find some RS for it, the game's linear mission structure should definitely be mentioned, as it completely deviates from the first two Saints Rows. The weapon wheel is a fairly independent feature from Saints Rows' contemporaries and could be mentioned (not compulsory, but it could be worked in).
  • With regards to my point above about the Plot being removed, and the want for more on the open world design, my suggestion would be to put the plot back in (with minor cull) under a "Synopsis" section, with a new "Setting" section in front of it (and optionally have the Synopsis section in front of Gameplay). This is commonplace in articles like BioShock Infinite where the reader having an understanding of the plot/setting would enhance their understanding of Gameplay. The open world design could be mentioned here, in addition to mentioning how the player's direct actions in the game can permanently change the game world (such as when you make the choice in the game as whether or not to blow up that big skyscraper, permanently upgrading cribs that then alter the skyline, gaining control of territories that eradicate rival gangs' presence there). This is all mentionable content, but if you'd rather not have a Synopsis you could work it into Gameplay if it retains focus. Although I'd say having a Synopsis section is the best approach.
  • You don't need coverage in sources for an overview of the plot if you're only really dealing with an overall summary of the story. An uncited, concise plot summary would comply with MOS:PLOT. Or you could add in cites from the actual game. The game includes decisions for players to make throughout the game, and multiple endings. In terms of sources actually talking about plot, you need only look to the reception section, where the plot and some of the themes have been thrown around by journalists. I think the plot's definitely includable if its writing is kept tight. Looking back on the diff before your work there was a fairly well-formed Plot that could be cut back to integral moments to the story, player-made decisions etc. Ask yourself; "why not?"—most FA-level articles I see have a plot section.
  • As the actors are notable for work outside the game, the voice cast should be put back in. If you wish (and I leave it up to you) you can negate a bullet-point list by mentioning the voice actors in brackets after their voiced character in a Plot section. Either/or. Behind the Voice Actors is a reliable replacement for IMDb. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a scan, I'd like to edit it in myself (it also might help clarify the stuff I don't know). I agree that your gameplay suggestions would be good, but they haven't been covered in the reviews I've read. I'll look harder. There's also a good chance the GI article may cover some of it. I'll see what I can do with the plot—I usually adhere to a stricter form of WP:V, myself, and only repeat parts of the plot that the RS found necessary (because I don't trust what isn't cited). Cast lists are specifically recommended against in WP:VG/GL (WP:VGSCOPE #10), but let me know what you think of that.czar ♔ 14:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Okay, here's my plan for the plot. I dropped in the old version as a plot section for now and later when I have time (or fortitude) I'm going to source it from the Prima walkthrough, which covers the bases of reliable and verifiable. czar ♔ 14:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I just re-read what you said about the plot, but the review RS I've read don't say much of anything past the first two pre-Steelport missions and that the gangs exist. FYI czar ♔ 15:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought Troy Baker would perhaps be an exception to the rule where "games where the video game cast is particularly notable", because....it's VG royalty Troy Baker. But only if there's a logical way to do it, like a mention in Development. Up to you. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good news. I've read through the Game Informer cover reveal and it works perfectly as a source for some of my suggestions, including some plot. There's plenty of great info in there for you. Emailing through to you. Also...is there...slight humour in your writing? If so, brilliant. "Design director Scott Phillips on handling the dildo bat for the first time"—I lol'd. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get it, careful that you don't miss the "Narrowing The Focus" box on pg 53, which is what I was talking about with the removal of multiplayer. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about the subtlety. Looking forward to checking out the GI source. I couldn't find a source that explained the weapon wheel as an idea, so that part may not be worth explaining. Also I have sources that say the story progress is linear, but I'm not sure this is worth adding if there isn't a source that also says that this deviates from the series precedent (which I can't find). Thanks czar ♔ 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Game Informer preview you're getting directly mentions that it's a deviation on pg 52. Email me back so I can send the scans through (can't attach files through Wikimail). CR4ZE (t • c) 15:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Kotaku (RS) mentions the weapon wheel in their review. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE, I saw that too, but it's a mention and doesn't explain what it is. czar ♔ 06:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common term, much like "crosshair" or "ammo", for a feature that's been used in countless AAA-games like GTA, Assasin's Creed, BioShock, Dead Rising... I don't see any OR concern if you mention that the game features a weapon wheel because an explanation is not likely to be challenged. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE, okay—I think I've covered everything. Take another look? czar ♔ 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. In the interest of absolute transparency I'll state for the record that while I have previously been a major contributor I had not edited the article for three years, and took the review after Czar had conducted a complete rewrite. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    CR4ZE (t • c) 06:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, that makes you most qualified to review it, no? Thanks for the helpful review czar ♔ 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saints_Row:_The_Third/GA1&oldid=1136378554"