Talk:Cultist Simulator

Why is this categorized as Lovecraft?
There is no Lovecraft content in this game, nor any Lovecraft-derived or Mythos content. While the broad themes are similar to some of Lovecraft's stories, the cosmology and content are a mix of theosophy and original content. 184.170.76.183 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The developers called it Lovecraftian, ergo, we can't argue with that. . --M asem (t) 05:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Lovecraft by the developers in that article is to say that the player's activity is similar to that of some of Lovecraft's protagonists. How does that qualify the game as "Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works"? It'd be like saying that a cyberpunk game is "based on the works of William Gibson" because it has you hacking a corporation's computer systems. (edit: To clarify, I'm not saying the game isn't inspired or influenced at all by Lovecraft - but it's specifically tagged here under "Media based on H.P. Lovecraft works" and "videogames based on works by H.P. Lovecraft", neither of which applies.) 184.170.76.183 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough point, there's no Lovecraft work directly involved in this game. I've re-categorized it to Weird Fiction, which where general Lovecraftian works would fall. --M asem (t) 06:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that it was also in a Cthulhu Mythos category, so I removed that as well. 184.170.76.183 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Reception
Hi. I tried to summarize the Reception section in the lead with the following statement: Reviewers praised the game's writing, while others criticized its pacing. This takes into account two different reviews: Eurogamer's, which says that its writing evoked a feeling of "a protean clutch of riddles, scholarly marginalia, back-alley rumours and pointed epithets", and Nintendo World Report's, which states that the game could take too long to make meaningful progress, and it was easy to make a mistake that would reset it. From what I see, reviews are equally divided regarding the gameplay. I wanted to let you know, knowing that you wish to take case about the verifiability of the article's content. Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is technically synthesis that presumes that because you read two reviews, there's a critical consensus among all reviewers. We already have a review aggregator in the article to tell us what critics thought.  However, this kind of weaselly "critics said" synthesis is rampant in video game articles and isn't really worth getting into a debate about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Metacritic? Further reviews can be considered so the sentence can reflect these positions more accurately. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)