Talk:Dead or Alive 5/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Altava (talk · contribs) 09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The following sources, to my knowledge, are not explicitly considered reliable on Wikipedia: Facebook, Crunchyroll, Youtube, Nowgamer, Thegamingliberty, Play-asia, Complex.com, and several others. Please back them up. See WP:VG/S for further information. And for OR, I'm specifically referring to this: "Further on one could expect some increases in both income and units sold related to the christmas holidays and future DLCs."
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * For 3a, the problem lies with the Plot and Characters section, neither of which appearing to provide all relevant information regarding the entirety of plot and characterization. The latter can at least be handwaved with the linked articles, but a short description of the most important characters would be helpful regardless. For 3b: too much emphasis on reviews. There is no need for anywhere near as much detail as the reviews currently provide. Pull a few quotes, mention major positives and issues, and then briefly touch on anything else important. Triviality is what the box next to this is for.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Sure.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * A fairly recent game. This in of itself is far from fatal, but it appears that in the last two weeks alone there has been several conflicts of varying severity and a very large number of edits. This leads me to believe the page is not stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I have no direct objections to the images used; however, both appear to have slightly incomplete NFC rationales, specifically with criteria 1 and 2. Please fix them.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is going to need some work should it seek GA. I am willing to give seven days to fix the above issues. Should they not be addressed, the article will be failed. Emmy   Altava  09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

On Criteria 1
"Vastly" is not necessary, and the sentence feels redundant. Depending on how you count, I'm seeing either four or seven. If you're not counting "extras", word it differently. Also, just cut the specific three names and say something like "The gameplay is divided into three main categories: the game's main story, offline modes such as Versus, Arcade, and Time Attack, and online fighting modes. Similar to 'that.' Also, 'innovations' is not a very neutral word - try 'changes' or 'updates.' Awkwardly constructed. Try "an interruption system like rock-paper-scissors." 'A' new feature. Undertaken 'the' task. Also, comma between DOATEC and but. what the heck is this To my knowledge, it is not currently 2010. PS3 is informal. Try for "By January 2010, rumors about the game being developed for PlayStation 3 had already circulated." You don't need to give specific dates for everything. In September, in June, in July, in late August... that would suffice. Sounds like an advertisement, almost. Axe "exclusive" somehow. Don't put (8/10), (7.7/10), et cetera after every review. It looks unprofessional, especially when the information is in a chart directly to the right. Shorten it. You shouldn't need more than twelve reviews. There are, of course, special circumstances, but you shouldn't put EVERY review in the box. News and update are separate words, 580 000 should be either "580,000" or "580000", "10,9 million $ should be $10.9 million", present should, I believe, be 'present', and the last bit is full-on crystal-ball OR.
 * as well as vastly improved graphics and more realistic visual style than its predecessors.
 * The game has three main modes: Story (the main Story Mode and bonus missions), Fighting (offline modes, including Versus, Arcade, Time Attack and Survival), Online (various competitive modes) and Extras.
 * The fighting gameplay is similar to this of Dead or Alive 4, with several innovations
 * fights in Dead or Alive 5 are based on a rock-paper-scissors like interruption system,
 * where the new feature called Power Blow
 * has undertaken task of rebuilding DOATEC but wants
 * and presented in "hyperlink cinema style"
 * Rumours about the game being developed also for the PS3 have circulated already by January 2010
 * Development as a whole
 * An exclusive item from the online retailer ShopTo.Net
 * Reception as a whole
 * Speaking of that chart...
 * As of October 29, the newsupdate of DoAWorld states that it has been sold 580 000 copies worldwide. This makes the game a 10,9 million $ operating profit, not including the income from precent DLCs. Further on one could expect some increases in both income and units sold related to the christmas holidays and future DLCs.

So yeah.

There's nothing wrong with Complex or Crunchyroll, Play-Asia is simply selling this stuff, YouTube and Facebook are all official accounts. This last stuff was added by somone else recently, I rewrote it completely. --Niemti (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like some solid changes have been made throughout. I'll reexamine it momentarily. On the subject of Complex and Crunchyroll, I will accept them. For Youtube and Facebook, I'm afraid I may not - that was not me, but merely consensus reached by parties of which I am generally independent. On that subject, although Play-Asia is acceptable for proving that an object exists, even in that circumstance it would be ideal to have another source. While I will not fail the criteria on this alone, it's something to consider.
 * It's, ort should be, really obvious that GameSpot's YouTube account is exactly as reliable as GameSpot is. Tecmo Koei official stuff is just Tecmo Koei official stuff, no matter where and how relayed. Also - what is linked is all only the game's trailers, and the release date announcements. --Niemti (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the policy you linked to talks only about "blogs, fansites, or forum posts", as OPPOSED to "official sources" and "information released by the game developer"! (Maybe you linked to a wrong one.) --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The story's up now. --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Second Assessment of GA1
I'll give you a slight time extension, because I'm a slowpoke. However - I linked to the correct policy. It details "official information" published in "unreliable sources", which can and does include Facebook and Youtube. It lists "blogs, fansites, or forum posts" as examples of this.

Despite intentions of examining the article a bit earlier than this, sometimes life conspires against one. So I'll re-examine now and give you 72 hours from the posting of the reassessment. Emmy  Altava  23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Okay.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The main issue here comes up with, again, the Plot/Character section. But it's the opposite thing this time: you've solved 3a by giving the information, but now you've heightened 3b by giving too much information. For the Character section, you only need to give details on the characters who are critical to the game's story - for instance, Kasumi - and maybe any new characters that were introduced. And for the Story, you mainly just need to give a brief summary of the most important events. I realize that Dead or Alive isn't exactly known for its gripping plots, but it seems like that would only make it easier to give a very dry, unemotional, and concise retelling of the parts that actually almost matter. If this paragraph comes off as intimidating, the situation here actually isn't too bad - just a bit of trimming all around should do the trick.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Assuming nothing catastrophic happens, the article should be comparatively stable at this point.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The same issues addressed in the first review persist: no rationale for NFCC #1 and #2. Otherwise acceptable.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Criteria 2b
The following sources are of undetermined reliability. Can more reliable ones be found?
 * Dead or Alive World
 * Eventhubs
 * Facebook
 * Justpushstart
 * PlayStation LifeStyle
 * Shoryuken
 * ThisIsXbox
 * Youtube
 * ZOMGPlay

Facebook is a 100% official account of Team Ninja. Look, here's a link from their official website teamninja-studio.com: (also to their twitter). Same for the YouTube accounts. You misunderstood this policy - it's about unofficial (fan-made) Facebook and YouTube accounts, something that anyone can start with any content.

There was really only a problem with Eventhubs one, because they forwarded an info from a Blogspot blog which in turn took it from a forum, and this is where the trail abruptly ends (I didn't add nor check this one before). The rest is fine, especially since many of them just post the trailers, and the pre-order offers were taken down after the release and in case of of doaworld.com one can't link directly to Amazon because Wikipedia blacklists it. --Niemti (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so? And yes, the story is brought down to the most important stuff (it was over 2 hours of cutscenes), and I had to explain things for everyone who don't know anything about any of these characters (and how they relate to each other, at the start of the game). You know - "all relevant information regarding the entirety of plot and characterization". --Niemti (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll finish it
I'll gladly do this one, since I'm getting to know Niemti and to prevent it from going to another pile at GAR, I'll take this one up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No disamb links, none to fix.

References are dead. Ref 8 and 19 to andriasang. The Facebook link I cannot access, though for what it is referencing it is fine. Ref 33 redirects to PCworld, so its broken. Please fix those.

Let's go through the prose. The lede seems just fine.

Gameplay:

"The game has four main modes: Story (the main Story Mode and bonus missions), Fighting (offline modes, including Versus, Arcade, Time Attack and Survival), Online (Simple Match, Ranked Match and Lobby Match) and Extras." - Should be fixed and condensed. The parenthesis make reading it dull from the get go. And is the option really called 'Fighting'? Is 'Extras' really a mode?

"Training Mode has more features than the previous Dead or Alive games." That is a statement that doesn't do anything for the reader. Explanation is is order of why it has more features.

"Online modes include an ability to organize and host tournaments for up to 16 players, Spectator mode enabling users to chat with other players while watching fights, and Online Dojo, a training mode where one can practice with other players." Almost seems like a run on sentence. It is a dull reading, let's go with a more active tone.

"Extras include Spectator, where players can watch replay of their matches, or watch fights between two AI players, and also take photographs from a position and angle of their choosing with a fully controllable camera." So its not a 'mode'. Its just replays and photography, right?

Fighting system

"The fighting gameplay is similar to this of Dead or Alive 4, with several changes." Awkward wording 'is similar to this of'.

"Like in the other games in the series, fights in Dead or Alive 5 are based on an interruption system reminiscent of rock-paper-scissors, in which strikes (normal attacks) beat throws, throws beat holds (interception attacks), and holds beat strikes, all of such counterattacks causing extra damage.[6]" I've not played the game, but this seems to be a dumbing down of gaming mechanics. Is not timing, movement and range of attacks not important?

"Tag team battles have been retained and the fights take place in interactive and now more highly-destructive arenas." Nix the highly-destructive and explain it. Also 'have been retained' assumes prior knowledge of the series. I'd remove that.

"A new feature called Power Blow (a triggered powerful attack that can be executed when a character's health is below 50%) enables the players to knock the opponent character away in a selected direction, possibly into the series' characteristic Danger Zones or over a cliff in the multi-level stages, which might then initiate a cinematic quick time event called Cliffhanger." Technical overkill and this is all one sentence. Needs to be split, clarified and explained better.

"With Cliffhanger, if a character can grab onto the stage at the last second before falling into a lower level, an action sequence is activated where the opponent character can make an effort to inflict even more damage if the attack succeeds." Again, game mechanic 'coolness' over explanation here. Fix please.

"The game's Critical System features Critical Stuns (after having been hit with specific moves, characters get stunned and are unable to block, but can still perform holds), Critical Combos (striking a character in a Critical Stun state can prolong the amount of time they remain stunned, but the damage that can be inflicted is limited) and Critical Bursts (a specific strike that over the damage limit of a Critical Combo that leaves the target character completely defenseless for a moment)." Run on and has many issues from the previous points. Should be overhauled.

Plot - Needs to be expanded, cleaned up and streamlined to decide on what to introduce and how to introduce it. Seems scattered and discusses more on the plot's story system rather then the plot itself.

Characters and cast - Complete overhaul and clean up. You know what I mean from the previous GAN. Oh and if you could point out their voice actors by JP or NA that would be great for clarity.

Story - Finally the plot itself, never played it but the prose isn't special. Could use some clean up and a run through for effect.

The rest is the usual clean up and such, and do we really need a whole section on comments about breast physics and sexuality? Maybe trim for effect, try and retain a proper encyclopedic tone instead of a GameInformer feel?

Also, the claims and prose such as this, " Asked "what would you say to those people who think that the bikini-clad babes in DOA5 are sexist," he said their goal was to create "the cutest chicks in videogames" and so they made a lot of effort to develop an advanced breast physics model that works differently with various types of clothing." No part of that reads like an encyclopedia, quotes must always be cited, but only when you need them. Not for every comment.

There are more problems, but lets start with this. Its a lot of work to cover. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a mode, precisely: "Spectactor Mode". And it can be played in real-time too. And yes, it's "Fighting". The link is the same as in the ref.
 * No, it's already huge. If you look at the history, the red numbers was usually where I was chopping at story and characters (and I was trying to make it short to beging with, but not enough so, so I even scrapped the first version completely while it was still in progress). And this included removing "voiced by" and just placing "and cast" in the section name. Or grouping related characters together.
 * The core system of DOA is this counter system. (Also the same link as in the ref.)

Breasts physics and stuff is what the series is famous and infamous for (no, really - and it's in all reviews of the game, too; there wre also some major controversies including underage characters, including one recent game being banned in Scandinavia over Swedish child pornography laws, and then in Australia too), they first tried to change this, and then came back and embraced it all over again. What's "a GameInformer feel"? Also the words that he used after a 180 turn from his previous talk about "real women", "high class" and what not is very telling and "the cutest chicks in videogames" reversal thing was even in the original interview's title (and it was noted by several other publications, and even commented that, to quote, "once again, Team Ninja proves the amounts of fucks they don't give is the stuff of legends"). --Niemti (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For prose, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia should. The 'amounts of fucks they don't give' is a prime example of the tone that shouldn't be in the article. Many of the quotes should not even be quoted. I can take a shot at this a bit later today, but in all fairness, the prose is not up to par with GAN standards. You did a lot of good work over at the Mortal Kombat pages and did it right. The article needs to be written with the concerns of WP:TONE. All other points... let's use that triangle system instead of 'rock-paper-scissors', wouldn't hurt to be technical and clean up the wording a bit. The cast and story bit, will need fixes for tone and such. I'll see about starting on it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not in the article :) The supposed change with DOA with DOA5 was like if MK guys said "OK, so we're done with that ultraviolence that we're famous and infamous for, it's getting old you know, let's try something else now," and then completely backed up on this and said "and so we're trying to make the most brutal game ever, and let me tell how we worked to make the blood effects more realistic". (Australia banned both MK and DOAD in 2011, just for different reasons.) --Niemti (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to fail this. It needs a lot of work and it hasn't been addressed. Its languished for too long anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? You just vanished for 2 weeks, I did "a lot of work" in the meantime, but with no comments from you (I was waiting patiently). The plot will NOT be expanded, because it's already very long - even as I tried to keep it short to begin with (and at first didn't even want to write to down) and then worked to cut it down repeatedly, and the sam about the character section, which is purposedly made to be as short as possible (while relaying all the bare info) but is still very long anyway. And more about "a lot of work" since this review started (2 months ago, and I thought it was good already), the article has grown from 31 to 55 kb, and from 70 to 105 refences (it was also being constantly kept up-to-date, including DLC, the Vita version, nominations, and so on), if it wasn't "a lot of work" I don't know what is. I also fixed pretty much eveything that was pointed out specifically, while explaining why this totally abandoned change in direction (due to a negative fan reaction, and they tried this obviously because by 2011 they were getting into a lot of trouble internationally) was a very important part for the game's the development (and then waiting for 2 weeks to hear if you're satisfied with this, but you just never responded at all). --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)