Template:Did you know nominations/SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest
- ... that some critics called the expansion pack SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest the "better SpellForce 3"?
- ALT1:... that critics felt it necessary to highlight the fact that the expansion pack SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest was not buggy on release?
- ALT2:... that SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest was considered by some critics compensation for SpellForce 3?
- ALT3:... that some critics felt it necessary to preface their reviews of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest with assurances that it was not buggy on release?
- ALT4:... that some critics felt it necessary to preface their reviews of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest with assurances that it was not as buggy as the main game?
Created by SoWhy (talk). Self-nominated at 13:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC).
The article is new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, and free of close paraphrasing. The facts for all three hooks are cited inline, and a QPQ has been provided. Of the three hooks, I think only ALT1 will really appeal to those unfamiliar with the game (such as myself), so I am noting my preference for that. However, the Reception section does not appear to explicitly mention ALT1's fact; instead, the article text merely states that the expansion pack "wasn't as buggy" as the original game, but makes no mention of the "necessary" wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I changed and added that part and added an ALT3 that more accurately reflects the text. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting ALT3. Normally I'd assume good faith for the sources, but while checking the references using Google Translate, as far as I can tell, only the first source has a preface mentioning a lack of bugs, and it didn't seem like an "assurance of being bug-free" but rather "bugs are a thing of the past". The second source mentions the bugs of the original game, but doesn't explicitly say in the preface that the expansion pack is bug free, only that the reviewer was cautious before playing. Can this situation be clarified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: GameStar basically says "When the roleplaying-realtime-hope [referring to the main game] was released at the End of 2017, it was plagued by heavy bugs [...] With these memories, we tested the beta version of the large expansion pack. [...] Like a car that was repaired after a significant engine failure, we were cautious but after the first campaign-kilometers, we accelerated because Soul Harvest does not have quirks but drives really well".PC Games basically says "Too soon, too many bugs and extremely embarrassing: For THQ Nordic, the release of Spellforce 3 was a real debacle. [...] With Soul Harvest [...] the developers want to prove that they can do better. And they did! In our test, Soul Harvest has no significant bugs, except for a few translation and pathfinding errors we could play the fantasy adventure completely and enjoy the large amount of new content."So both sources felt it necessary to juxtapose the main game with the expansion pack with regards to bugs in the first paragraph(s) of their reviews, albeit one with a car metaphor that might be confusing to non-native speakers. I added ALT4 for further clarity. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of saying "prefacing their reviews", wording such as "emphasized in their reviews" or something like that could work instead? Seems to be more accurate considering as far as I can tell, the mention of the bugs wasn't in the first paragraph of the second source. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm unsure which source you mean by "second source". This source's first two paragraphs are what I quoted above. Or do you count the subheading ("Mickrig ist hier nur der Preis: Im Test glänzt das eigenständig lauffähige Add-on zu Spellforce 3 mit sattem Umfang! Aber auch aus den technischen Mängeln des Hauptspiels haben die Entwickler ihre Lehren gezogen: Die üblen Bugs sind Schnee von gestern.") as the first paragraph? That subheading also explicitly mentions that the "vicious bugs are yesterday's news". From what I can read, both reviews explicitly start by telling people that the expansion does not suffer from the same problems as the main game, so maybe you are seeing something I'm not (or vice versa)? Regards SoWhy 09:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if my earlier point wasn't very clear. The point I tried to give was that the "found it necessary" wording seems to be slightly inaccurate, since the sources do not seem to say that "the reviewers think that it is necessary to mention the lack of bugs"; instead, my understanding is that the sources instead go something like "the reviewers emphasized the lack of bugs", but not out of necessity. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm unsure which source you mean by "second source". This source's first two paragraphs are what I quoted above. Or do you count the subheading ("Mickrig ist hier nur der Preis: Im Test glänzt das eigenständig lauffähige Add-on zu Spellforce 3 mit sattem Umfang! Aber auch aus den technischen Mängeln des Hauptspiels haben die Entwickler ihre Lehren gezogen: Die üblen Bugs sind Schnee von gestern.") as the first paragraph? That subheading also explicitly mentions that the "vicious bugs are yesterday's news". From what I can read, both reviews explicitly start by telling people that the expansion does not suffer from the same problems as the main game, so maybe you are seeing something I'm not (or vice versa)? Regards SoWhy 09:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of saying "prefacing their reviews", wording such as "emphasized in their reviews" or something like that could work instead? Seems to be more accurate considering as far as I can tell, the mention of the bugs wasn't in the first paragraph of the second source. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: GameStar basically says "When the roleplaying-realtime-hope [referring to the main game] was released at the End of 2017, it was plagued by heavy bugs [...] With these memories, we tested the beta version of the large expansion pack. [...] Like a car that was repaired after a significant engine failure, we were cautious but after the first campaign-kilometers, we accelerated because Soul Harvest does not have quirks but drives really well".PC Games basically says "Too soon, too many bugs and extremely embarrassing: For THQ Nordic, the release of Spellforce 3 was a real debacle. [...] With Soul Harvest [...] the developers want to prove that they can do better. And they did! In our test, Soul Harvest has no significant bugs, except for a few translation and pathfinding errors we could play the fantasy adventure completely and enjoy the large amount of new content."So both sources felt it necessary to juxtapose the main game with the expansion pack with regards to bugs in the first paragraph(s) of their reviews, albeit one with a car metaphor that might be confusing to non-native speakers. I added ALT4 for further clarity. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting ALT3. Normally I'd assume good faith for the sources, but while checking the references using Google Translate, as far as I can tell, only the first source has a preface mentioning a lack of bugs, and it didn't seem like an "assurance of being bug-free" but rather "bugs are a thing of the past". The second source mentions the bugs of the original game, but doesn't explicitly say in the preface that the expansion pack is bug free, only that the reviewer was cautious before playing. Can this situation be clarified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I changed and added that part and added an ALT3 that more accurately reflects the text. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I get it. Your problem is that the sources don't say "we feel it's necessary to preface our review with...", right? I don't think that's really necessary but then how about
- ALT 5: ... that some critics prefaced their reviews of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest with assurances that it was not as buggy as the main game?
- That way, that part is gone and the hook would be shorter, too. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I think ALT5 is closer to the intent of the sources that I checked (at least both based on machine translations and the ones provided here), so I think we should be good to go with that hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
