Talk:Beyond: Two Souls/Archive 1

Potential censoring of US version?
Anyone hear of this?

Seems like there's some rumors and speculation going around on forums but nothing concrete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyItsAedan (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like just rumors, nothing concrete: http://sceuncut.tumblr.com/post/62430932818/beyond-two-souls-october-2013-censored-in-the-eu. It doesn't look to be worth mentioning until there's something reliable. Jujutacular (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013
Someones vandalised the opening paragraph with a spoiler

176.255.72.49 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed by . Thanks. Jujutacular (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This content should not have been removed. As per Wikipedia rules WP:SW content should not be removed solely on the basis of it being a spoiler.Drewder (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It should, however, be in the correct section. The material was purely disruptive. Jujutacular (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

To make matters worse...
To make matters worse, whoever wrote the plot synopsis uses the expression "to make matters worse" repeatedly. To make matters worse, "to make matters worse" just doesn't sound very good. To make matters worse, to make matters worse. Matters are made worse. Worse matters are made. Matters are worse, and they have been made so. 69.251.45.144 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even worse, it seems a tad excessive including basically the entire story, and none of it is referenced. I think we should make it considerably shorter. CFCF (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a good idea to leave it for a month or two, until people have moved on from the game and edits have died down. It will be easier to edit and run less risk of stuff being re-added. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand it's now that people use the text as a source. Wikipedia isn't just a repository of information about things that have been. It also covers current events and themes, and should do so well. CFCF (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Game, or film?
A person claiming to be the director (and who may indeed be the director) feels strongly that this subject is best described as a film, not a game. Are there reliable sources that would support this? I'm opening a discussion rather than simply shooting him down, because if he is the director, then I'd like to take it seriously enough to consider the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That user is just a troll, and not actually the director. Nymf (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an article with David Cage defining Beyond: Two Souls as a game. My guess is that the troll takes issue with this new type of gameplay. Nymf (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is most likely just a plain troll. Here is an actual source that quotes David Cage referring to it as a game: . Yes this game brings the medium closer to the film, but I haven't seen anyone actually referring to it as a film. Jujutacular (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just my 2-cents. I just watched a walkthrough on Youtube and as far as I can tell its a movie (albeit a good one as sci-fi goes) with very little "game" to it. (Philbert) 174.102.151.214 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interactive. That makes it a game. Prhartcom (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary
There is currently a complete lack of references in the plot. It does on the other hand quite well follow the games plot, so I haven't deleted it. What should be done? I feel it is far too in-depth as well as being unsourced. For example the french wikipedia entry is quite good, but it has a much shorter plot synopsis. Should this be changed more to the style of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond:_Two_Souls ?? CFCF (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten and sourced the plot summary to make it shorter and with references. Please tell me here if you have any comments about it. CFCF (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore the old plot summary, as it was removed for lacking any citations whatsoever. Please expand the current one and use citations! CFCF (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I mean that version has obvious inaccuracies as well such as "Jodie Holmes (Caroline Wolfson)" - that isn't correct.CFCF (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Wolfson did the performance for Jodie as a child, FYI. Dibol (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism - Semi-protection request
I have requested the article page semi-protected because of repeated vandalism from new or unregistered users. Here's hoping the request goes through, and also hoping that the 'vandals' come here to try and discuss why they have been removing cited text and replacing it without references.CFCF (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Protection is not necessary. I only see one example of someone restoring the old plot summary (and their action is not considered vandalism) before you reverted them and put back the much better, shorter, referenced plot summary. I believe things are under control here. Please pull the request. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been quite a lot of vandalism in this article, especially with the people insisting that it is a movie rather than a game. Nymf (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reason we are seeing so little vandalism is because the page is protected. Despite the protection the page needed a revertion. Look further back. CFCF (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)), here hoping we don't get vandalism when it opens upCFCF (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right about certain edits, but please don't call them vandalism. Re-read: WP:Vandalism. Prhartcom (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am versed in that text, but blanking the page and replacing it with Beyond: Two Souls is a movie by David Cage is just blatant vandalism. Edits to come after that might not be, but they are still disruptive.CFCF (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

a shining blue light in one of several colours
How can "a shining blue light" be "one of several colors"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:69:CD76:DF01:2E81:58FF:FEFF:8F4B (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point; first "blue" deleted. You were welcome to fix it yourself as well. Prhartcom (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot Summary, Part 2
I have reverted the recent attempt to restore the extremely lengthy Plot summary, in favor of the much shorter and easier to read summary. It is not necessary to retell the entire story of the plot. See WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. I have also cut some overly detailed Gameplay description. Prhartcom (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem with the smaller plot summary is it gave little to no information about the game's story. If there's a good middle ground to make it the appropriate length, I would be in full support of it and I myself have been doing my best to make the necessary trims recently. If there's a dedicated editor that owns the game and can make the proper edits, I'd say go for it. Can we follow Heavy Rain's summary? I feel like the format for that particular game's plot summary will be a win-win for all sides.Dibol (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I see this is the better Plot. It is wonderfully well-written, although it is too long. It certainly must be summarized even more. I have played the game and I am giving it a try; I have summarized the plot where I can. Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good edit. Just tweaked the final sentence, and it should be good for standing as is.Dibol (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good Zoey idea; I also made additional minor improvements. This is a well-done article now; I see no real problems with it. I hope an editor here considers taking it to WP:GA. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments about recent edit to plot
When I read your edit summary I was hopeful that you had indeed further tightened the Plot, but upon close inspection I was disappointed to see your edit was mostly not an improvement. Nothing personal; I just want the article to remain at a high level of excellence.

1st paragraph: You broke apart two phrases about Aiden that had been connected as one sentence, and connected the first phrase with the previous unrelated sentence; I changed it back. I kept that you deleted the foster parents' names.
 * Fine.

2nd paragraph: You deleted the brief description of the word Infraworld, a description which is necessary as the fictional word has not yet been defined in the article; I changed it back.
 * The Infraworld wasn't only the world of the dead, stating so is incorrect.

3rd paragraph: You changed "country" to "United States"; no need (it is mentioned later); I changed it back. You changed "fighting" to "fleeing", the third occurrence of the word "flee" in those sentences; too redundant; I changed it back. You added that the birth takes place in a burning building, which it does not; I changed it back. You changed "recaptures Jodie" to "fins Jodie"; sloppy editing; I changed it back. You changed a comma to a semicolon that is grammatically incorrect; I changed it back. You changed "catatonic biological mother" to "drugged up catatonic biological mother"; too verbose and amateurish; I changed it back. I kept that you deleted reference to infant Zoey.
 * I changed country to United States because it wasn't immediately obvious that the text wasn't referring to Somalia. Only stating catatonic, but not that she was under the influence of CIA-administered drugs isn't clear enough. There are many other reasons she could be catatonic.

4th paragraph: You changed "and subjects her" to "subjecting here"; sloppy editing; I changed it back. You changed "the same fate" to "a similar fate"; I believe it is the same fate and your edit makes less impact; I changed it back. You changed "it" (the Black Sun) to "the link"; I have no idea what this means; I changed it back. I kept that you deleted "live her life". I kept that you changed a dash to the word "since" (I notice you avoid the dash, which is a valid and useful punctuation mark, you know). I kept that you changed "be let free" to "roam free". I kept that you changed "the Chinese-developed condenser" to "a Chinese-developed condenser".
 * Yes, I bet you've never made a typo either, and I'm very aware the dash is valid, I just don't like it.

5th paragraph: You added the word "namely"; not necessary and makes less impact; I changed it back. You changed "Jodie" to "the player"; both are correct, but I believe that if we avoid mentioning "the player" and just stick to the characters in the plot it will read so much better and lead to more succinct writing; I changed it back. You changed "must make a choice" to "much chose"; come on now, stop with the sloppy editing already! I changed it to "must choose:", restoring the colon. You changed "go back to the world of the living, or go on to the Infraworld" to "will return to the world of the living, or pass on to the Infraworld"; poor tense usage; I changed it back but kept your change of "go back" to "return". I changed "and be reuinited"; misspelled again; to "and be reunited". I kept that you changed a full stop to the word "and", joining two sentences, although I changed it to the word "where". I kept that you changed "As Jodie shuts down the control to the condenser" to "As Jodie shuts down the condenser". I kept that you changed "her twin brother who was stillborn" to "her stillborn twin brother". I restored the last sentences that you had cut, deleting, as you also had, reference to Zoey. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will go back and do some more clarifications. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made some additional edits, and have tried to follow your advice. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, great. I am looking through them now.
 * 1st paragraph: I changed back to "a mysterious entity named Aiden". I know, your way is slightly shorter, and shorter is good; this was a close call, but I hope it's okay with you that we keep it the previous way. (Interestingly; the use of this same word "mysterious" recently came up in a different discussion about another article; we agreed to keep it there too.) Thank-you for cutting the word "many".
 * Third paragraph: I cut the additional sentence that was added: "Her mother being held in a permanent catatonic state at mercy of CIA-administrerd drugs." because no, not only does it have grammatical problems, our goal is WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE, never forget (not everything in the story has to be described here). I kept the additional added phrase: "at a military hospital".
 * 4th paragraph:That's what we are talking about! Nice improvement!
 * 5th paragraph: Changed it back to "By the story's end, the Infraworld has become a widespread threat in the not-so-distant future. Jodie prepares to confront the threat." The previous way was terribly awkward and too long. If we decide we are mentioning Zoey here, we will certainly have to introduce her earlier. FYI, I added a full stop earlier in this paragraph where I believe a slight pause was needed after all. I also hopefully improved the "stillborn twin brother" sentence; I believe it's now shorter, more dramatic, and less redundant.

If anyone would like to continue to tighten the Plot, feel free. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to tighten it, but omitting that her mother is held in that state by drugs makes it hard to understand how the CIA could "leave her to the same fate". Also there are no grammatical errors there. Maybe it is a little contrived, but not incorrect. As for the other points, I don't mind so much. Thanks, -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then change "reconnect with her catatonic biological mother at a military hospital" to "reconnect with her catatonic biological mother, who is being [...] at a military hospital"; you fill in what it needs. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you can add the drugs reference to the sentence if you want. Prhartcom (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say it I think it suffices to say she is being held, which sort of implies something more sinister. Simply mentioning that she is at a military hospital is a bit too general, and could be read as that she lives/is cared for/or simple had an accident and is there. "Held" is also slightly shorter and leaves us from using: "amateurish" terms like, "drugged"; or the alternative, but a little to elaborate, "where she is held in a catatonic state by military/CIA administered psychotropic drugs". --  CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, good point, but what about your earlier good point that I haven't forgotten, about the prose later mentioning Jodie receiving the "same fate" as her mother, what fate exactly is that? Perhaps we need a little phrase here that strengthens what it is that someone has deliberately done to her. ("drugged up" was amateurish, "drugged" is fine.) I just tried changing it to: "held and forcibly drugged for decades in a military hospital" Prhartcom (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back I don't see how I could have written "drugged up", which I agree sounds amateurish. I made a small clarifying change, but I feel it's pretty good now, and I don't think we need to change it much more.-- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone would like to continue to tighten the plot, please feel free, but I really should add: Great job everybody! This was a big project reducing some eight hours of action into five paragraphs; I believe so many editors must have worked to create this polished work! Consider getting a WP:GA for this article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay citations needed
Let's now work to get source citations into the Gameplay section. I took a look at a featured article for ideas: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which cites the game's instruction manual, online game guides, and online reviews in their Gameplay section. We mostly just need to re-read all existing sources and then locate and cite facts from the sources in the existing prose. Would anyone care to begin? Prhartcom (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

IP editor's edits
Hello to the IP editor from Virginia Polytech. Thank-you for your worthwhile edits to the article, which you see have been kept. Below are the reasons for the portions of your edits that have been (sometimes repeatedly) removed. Note that many of the topics below have been previously discussed with other editors on this talk page and in the edit summary.
 * Sentences should be as tight as possible, meaning: extraneous words should be edited out and prevented from being added back in. This keeps the article's sentences from getting bogged down and makes them easier to read. Every sentence in this article has been gone over numerous times by several editors, and we have removed most of the extraneous text and poor writing that had been added, and, we believe, we have improved the article's readability. Please join us in working to keep extraneous text out and resist any of your own efforts to add it back in.
 * It is not necessary to document everything. Those of us who wrote and edited the Plot summary and Gameplay sections have avoided falling into the trap of incorrectly thinking everything needs to be documented. Instead; notice how the article provides a broad, pleasant-to-read, encyclopedic overview and tells the narrative of everything of importance without becoming bogged down.
 * In the Gameplay section, it is not necessary to include detail about which specific controller sticks perform an action. Just as it is not necessary to include detail about which specific controller buttons perform an action. Other articles about games, which usually play on multiple platforms and therefore have even more of this by necessity, also do not include this kind of superfluous detail. This section is a narrative about the gameplay; it is not the game instruction booklet or required reading before playing the game. No one will consult Wikipedia to learn which of the two controller sticks to use or which of the four controller buttons to press. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is not the goal of the Gameplay section to explain every single gameplay detail just as it is not the goal of the Plot section to explain every single plot detail. Reading the word "right" or "left" while reading those sentences stops the reader and makes them question why it's important, then they realize it isn't.
 * In the Plot synopsis, please do not add information mentioning "the player". The article mentions "the player" in the Gameplay section and mentions characters by name in the Plot synopsis section, and it seems works out quite well this way.
 * Also in the Plot synopsis, just as it is not necessary to document every single event that happens in the plot, it is especially true that we cannot take the time to add every single story path the characters could experience. For this particular game especially, this restriction leaves some of the story out, and it added an extra challenge to those of us who wrote and edited the plot synopsis in its current form, but it has been accomplished and we believe the plot is more readable because of it. No reader is harmed by avoiding reading burdensome phrases such as, "depending on action by the player, [x, y, and z happens], otherwise [a, b, and c happens]." We just say "[x, y, and z happens]" as best we can.
 * For a sentence containing text followed by the word "and" followed by more text, there is generally no comma before the "and".
 * When the article says that "Aiden intervenes, ending in disaster" the word "negatively" is already implied.
 * The game does not say how long Jodie trains, whether it is weeks or years.
 * Regrettably, we have to cut the specific mention of Jodie's mother's name. I tried to keep it, but there is (as usual) a lot going on in the sentence and it's mention just got in the way. There also isn't time to mention the mother's fate. Fortunately, not mentioning these doesn't detract from the synopsis.
 * Try reading the article from the point of view of a non-gamer, or someone who hasn't played the game. This can help guide anyone who wants to ensure the article can be easily read.

Thank-you for your consideration. I hope you understand this and are not too put off by it. I also urge you to get a Wikipedia account. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is the Polytech guy who was making some edits on the Beyond: Two Souls page earlier; not the vandalism ones someone else made tonight but the ones a few days ago about grammar, word choice, and a few gameplay-related things in some areas. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for being a little rude with my edits, and I read your contributions and explanations that you put on the Talk page; in retrospect I might have taken some things seriously, and I regret how I acted at times. I trust you with your edits, see the points that you're making, and I'll try to avoid being pushy with reverts in the future; I respect and I'll stop working against your revisions if I ever make any more article changes. Anyway, I just wanted to say sorry for being annoying like that, and thank you for explaining it to me in a calm manner. I will also consider getting a Wikipedia account in the future based on your advice; thanks dude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:411F:50CF:F22B:8F36:D51A (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to mention this character
There are many characters in the story told by this game, and one of them is an infant daughter born to another character. This infant character named Zoe, who according to one of the possible plot developments may grow up to fight alongside Jodie, need not be mentioned in the plot summary of this article. We already do not mention several other characters appearing in this game. We generally stick to mentioning only Jodie, Aiden, and the other main characters. Due to its complicated nature, this game's plot could go one way or the other, and we could allow the plot summary to become bogged down in detail. Because we would like this plot summary to remain readable and be of a manageable size, we have been avoiding bogging the prose down with too much plot or character. We do miss out on documenting some people and action that takes place in this game, but it seems to work out pretty well. Therefore, when another editor deleted the mention of this character Zoe, I agreed that it was an improvement; I hope others do also. Prhartcom (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If we're going to go this route, I honestly believed that removing the final sentence of the summary was a better move considering Jodie could possibly die in the game, and as it is, Jodie doesn't exactly respond to the "far future" threat if she's dead. As you said in your earlier mention, the plot's complicated nature makes it next to impossible to make it concise, hence my previous edit after your last revert on removing Zoe. I even said in my last edit summary that since there was almost no way of having an agreement with how the summary of the ending should end, removing this last sentence should close the endless questioning loop of "Wait, there are multiple endings. What should get mentioned, and what should be excluded.Dibol (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you saying that it is fair enough. I put the closing sentence back because it is a nice finish to the summary; it has a final sound when reading it. I'm not getting hung up on faithfulness to plot minutiae. If you look through the History, I defended keeping the Zoe character in the summary for a long time, putting it back when others deleted it. I finally reconsidered the last time someone deleted it, realizing they were right: it is simpler and better this way. I hope you can see that too. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception
Looking at the review reception, it seems there is far more focus on the negative reception than there is for the positive reception with giving attention to specific examples on the former. Also bits like "criticised the game's lack of solid character interaction and its unbelievable, unintentionally silly plot" comes off as presenting the negative reviews as being objective fact rather than subjective opinions. I think at minimum it would work better to present a few examples on both sides in a way as either quotations or presented as being the reviewers' opinions.

I can try working on this later myself but I don't have as much time to edit Wikipedia as I used to so I am putting this out here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (CyberGhostface, I haved moved your duplicate post on my talk page to here.)
 * You're right, that is an accurate way to summarize that paragraph. As well, over the last year many have tried to expand the negative reviews to an disproportional level. What would be needed is to consult the current reliable sources being referred to by the article and actually state a few lines of support for the game from those types of reviews, but keeping it to an exact balance with the negative. I have thought of doing this in the past but have avoided doing so mostly because I like the words that summarize the positive reviews and am afraid we would lose a lot if that summary needed to be deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer a rewrite of the second half to be more in line with the first so we wouldn't lose the summary? I could try doing that when I get some time later. Thanks for your work on the article and getting it to GA status. :)--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think maybe a mixture of both summary and quotes for both positive and negative would be the best of all. As we're already GA, I don't think we need anything major. I'll have a crack at it later this weekend, or feel free yourself. I only just noticed that you have tagged the section, which I certainly don't agree with (as we do have neutral prose discussing both the positive and negative; I believe POV-pushing that you are implying would have been caught in GAN; it's just a disparity of styles we are discussing), but we can leave it there while we are working on this. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I removed it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry also that I have not acted on this yet; I will take a look at it soon. Prhartcom (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beyond: Two Souls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310150848/http://senpaigamer.com/sony-playstation/beyond-two-souls-release-17-october-japan-08012013-0804 to http://senpaigamer.com/sony-playstation/beyond-two-souls-release-17-october-japan-08012013-0804

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified 2
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beyond: Two Souls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009132059/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/beyond-two-souls-review-official-playstation-magazine/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/beyond-two-souls-review-official-playstation-magazine/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010050849/http://www.screwattack.com/reviews/review-beyond-two-souls to http://www.screwattack.com/reviews/review-beyond-two-souls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Reception 2
I didn't want to submit a reassessment, but the review template is overloaded with scores and does not reflect what is in the prose portion, which is itself not large enough to be considered complete. For a Good Article, this is not good enough. Cognissonance (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cognissonance, I understand now what you are saying. I have never touched the scores section, allowing other editors more expert than myself to handle it. The Reception section provides one paragraph per "side" on the polarized consensus of this game. Perhaps we should expand both paragraphs a bit, and trim the scores a bit to align better? I don't do much research editing lately; just happened to see your note. What do you think, and what would be a good, example article to follow? —Prhartcom ♥ 14:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing all the scores with parameters beginning with rev, leaving only the ones that have official template parameters. After this, the section should be rewritten in the style of something like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (which has the default style of the Wikiproject), using only the reviews that remain in the template. As this is designated as a Good Article, the section has to be well written. If you're indisposed or unable, I will have to seek a reassessment to find someone else. Cognissonance (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the example. Let me look at this. I don't suppose you want to fix this; I suppose you only want to reasses it. Did you understand what I meant about the current goal of each paragraph; I suppose that structure can be kept and built upon. —Prhartcom ♥ 15:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the first paragraph cites reviews not in the template and the second doesn't summarise enough of the reviews already cited. I'm too busy to do this myself. With Detroit: Become Human soon to be a Good Article and Quantic Dream being rewritten, I felt it was time for this to be brought up. Cognissonance (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. Yes, I agree that the review box should only summarize the reviews mentioned in the prose as you said, and I agree that the two paragraphs should be expanded as you said; the structure and goals of the paragraphs that I mentioned are fine (I see the example article does similarly). I understand you only have time to point out problems and never work on them. Let me look at this. Don't bother actually submitting for reassessment any article for these types of reasons; the article is still well-written per the GA Criteria. —Prhartcom ♥ 16:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've got this under control. I agree the article is well-written and this single issue can be addressed without any need for re-assessment. Good luck with it. I am still checking my watch-list daily but am not currently undertaking any active editing due to university commitments so am not able to assist at this time. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got a bit done, got a bit more to do; will keep at it; thanks all for the support. —Prhartcom ♥ 02:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're good for now, gents. —Prhartcom ♥ 06:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Polygon and GamesRadar+
@User:Prhartcom is unwilling to take the issue here even though they were reverted by two editors. I don't see a reasonable explanation behind their persistence of showing a positive review as negative among the negative ones. Sebastian James what's the T? 13:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Sebastian James. Thanks for working on the article recently. I'm glad to see the article was lately improved with two more reviews mentioned in the article body. In my last edit that I had hoped was a further improvement, I did a little minor copy editing. I also moved and rewrote the Polygon mention as the current writing, "did not find the script as good", was a bit poorly written; I believed the article deserved better, so I found a different passage in the review to mention (the "timed button-presses" seems more worth mentioning). And I also removed some quoted text, "a truly special story-telling experience", as it was unnecessary puffery that did not add much to the article. Those were the things I changed in the article. Now I see that you don't like my edit for some reason, something about a positive review as negative? Not sure what you mean; yes, a reviewer may rate a work "80" but certainly their reivew may say both positive and negative things? A compelling article is my only goal. Feel free to edit my work; leave the good parts and fix any bad parts. —Prhartcom ♥ 21:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. You should also read WP:UNDUE after you read WP:BRD. You can't show the review that mostly praises the product as a negative review, especially in this case when we have already 4 positive and 7 mixed/negative reviews (it violates WP:NPOV). The Polygon sentence was perfectly fine before, I don't think "button press" thing is more worth mentioning or interesting and I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Comes off as a violation of WP:NPOV and misleading as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to replace what is there. The writing "did not find the script as good as the storytelling, the performances and the graphics" could be better; this article deserves better. The line "stating 'a truly special story-telling experience that you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere else'" is unneccessary puffery that doesn't add much to the article; we don't need it. I have copy edited, tried to improve the Polygon mention, and likewise the GamesRadar+ mention. Please look at my edits and let me know if it looks okay. Feel free to improve the article further. —Prhartcom ♥ 02:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Awards section
This week, user Sebastian James has greatly extended the list of accolades Beyond: Two Souls has received, including those given from a number of gaming, media, and news websites. However, I believe it is recommended that only those awards that are given by major award ceremonies and shows (Golden Joystick, Game Awards, Annie Awards, D.I.C.E. Awards, to name a few) should be included in a game's accolades section, in part due to the weight of the sources and the possibility of them being unreliable. Please can this be confirmed with any Wikipedia guidelines or otherwise discussed? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: As per the articles for God of War (2018) and Marvel's Spider-Man, I have been reminded that video game publications/websites should not be included in the table of official accolades, and instead should be mentioned in a paragraph above. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is just concocting. Most of the awards here are also included in List of accolades received by The Last of Us, which is a featured article, and WP:OSE. Sebastian James what's the T? 16:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikibenboy94, agreed. The prose already mentions the actual accolades. The unnecessary table has been deleted. —Prhartcom ♥ 01:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want team/cast pictures there are free on flickr
Just transfer them to Commons: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nivrae/albums/72157636142511224 --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

CheatCC
This doesn't need discussion, Cheat Code Central is clearly listed at WikiProject Video games/Sources for everyone to see. List of accolades received by The Last of Us is a featured list, quite different from a featured article as they have far lower standards. That's not to say that reviewers can make mistakes for either. Saying "CheatCC is used there so it must be used here" is pointy and WP:OSE at best. I'm removing it from both lists. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What? This escalated quickly. We are talking about multiple sources, not just CheatCC. No need to talk big about it too. (Also, be more careful when removing sources that you are unsure of.) Sebastian James what's the T? 16:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're right, there also was an accolade from Game Rant. Note, however, that this one is also classified as unreliable in the same list. I'm also seeing now that the Visual Editor messed up some parts where the code moved into the cells, but these weren't visible in the previews given by the VE, so that error on me. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)