Talk:Evolve (video game)

DLC controversy
Why no mention of the heavy criticism the game is getting based on their planned DLC practices? 203.211.115.34 (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the DLC is skins. Much ado about nothing. KD-Dragon (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change the fact that it was heavily hated for it, and caused a media outrage - it was *not* well-recieved; i.e., even if it was factually much ado about nothing, it was 'much ado', i.e., should be mentioned. 155.4.14.23 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

StarCraft
Shouldn't there be mention of how closely the commercial promoting this game resembles Blizzard's franchise? The woman narrating it is a total doppleganger of Sarah Kerrigan (Ghost of the Terrans) aka Queen of Blades (Infested Terran leader of Zerg) surprised they didn't get sued. 174.92.133.107 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the similarities with the Resistance series! Nick Cooper (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Article vandalism
Someone's messing with the page right now. Here's there IP address: 207.62.177.227

—017Bluefield (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reported --Mrjulesd  (talk)  14:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And blocked. --Mrjulesd (talk)  16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A remake of Evolva?
Is this in any way related to an earlier Interplay game called Evolva? The theme looks very similar. 178.222.200.87 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The two games are completely unrelated. KD-Dragon (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Open world?
Could this game be considered open world?104.246.57.162 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)ECW28


 * Not really, it is just like a standard multiplayer game, which you are given a map and you can roam within it freely. I don't think it counts as an open-world games, considering there is other maps and they are not connected. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not open world. All action takes place within one constrained map per match, like the majority of other first-person shooter games -- Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal Tournament, etc. KD-Dragon (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment
Came here via the reassessment request in the VG box; bumping this up to B-class, low-importance. Some ideas for improvement follow:


 * Okay, wow, that is a hell of a development/release section. Nice! Much longer than that and you might want to split it out into a "Development of Evolve" article, but I think it's still fine for now.
 * The Plot section is pointless- one short paragraph does not need a section. It's really more "Setting", though, since the game doesn't really have a plot, so maybe you cna rename it to Setting and pull out bits that fit with that from Gameplay? Hopefully enough to bump it to 2 full paragraphs, at least.
 * That first paragraph in Gameplay is a menace- chop it in half, at least, if not fourths. Paragraphs shouldn't be more than 5-8 sentences, if you can, otherwise it just turns into a block of text that reader's eyes skim over- right now that one's at 18 sentences.
 * The article could use a general grammar copyedit prior to GAN (and certainly before an FAC) - a lot of short, choppy sentences, sentence fragments ("But playing with less than five players, including single player, is possible..."), pronoun/pluralization mismatches ("jetpacks...it"), and bits of over-wordiness ("January 15, 2015 through to January 19, 2015", instead of "January 15–19" (you already said 2015; you don't need to repeat months and years when they're obvious in context)).
 * Except that's wrong, isn't it- the alphas were in 2014, not 2 months from now.
 * Metacritic scores generally shouldn't be stated out to the hundredths of a percent- it's meaningless noise, just round to the nearest percent. I'd go farther, since you can see the percents in the reviews table (round there too), and just change the text to "both metacritic and gamerankings reported aggregate scores in the low to mid 70s, with the XBox One scores slightly lower than the other two platforms". That's just me, though- I prefer to give a summary of the data, not every single raw number that can be given.
 * Reception section looks great, though you maybe overuse "praise" as a word.
 * Ref 95 is missing a date; don't know why I noticed that one. -- Pres N  14:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the reassessment. I will fix the issues soon. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editor's Request now finished
If there are any concerns, or additional items that I may have missed, please let me know by using  to ping me. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the copyedit. I know that this is a very very long article with lots of grammatical mistakes so I really do appreciate you for putting efforts into improving the article. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I actually have a soft spot for fixing bad Ingrish, though I may run the rendered text through Word or something to make sure that the spelling is all in a single dialect, probably Aussie because of personal bias (I kid, American English for an American-based game creator), rather than having a possible cocktail of American, British, Aussie, etc. If there are any areas that still seem a bit "rough" or anything, just let me know. I'll keep an eye out while the article is a GAN and help out if I can. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So 2K owns the IP outright?
I read in the bankruptcy that 2K was going to have publishing rights and Turtle Rock was going to maintain the IP? When did the sale occur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this article written by a fanboy?
It mentions some "ingenito" a bunch of times in reception, as a singular person, not to mention that it seems to base half (if not more) of the reception-section on this person, and goes no to praise the game to a ridiculous level, saying it was "well-received" - which just plain isn't true; scores were fair enough, and are sourced, so all good there, but the debacle with their release model, the billions of versions, the controversy of announcing season passes and such before the game had even been unveiled, the massive lashback when the DLC's, prices etcetera were released, and the fact that the game died within months, and only got revived as Free-to-play for that reason - that is to say, the literal only reason they completely revamped the entire game and released it for free is due to that it had died; the playerbase was gone, and the overwhelming response from the community - which, to no surprise, was (and even now remains) reflected on Steam, where it used to be "overwhelmingly negative" in user-reviews, and now has gone all the way up to... "Mixed". This article is incredibly biased to a ridiculous degree, something which unfortunately seems all-too common with video-game articles... Point at hand, this needs to be fixed, as the article makes the game out to be great and glorious and having had a reception worthy of that - when neither is true. The article is, simply put, outright lying. 155.4.14.23 (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a large paragraph about the DLC controversy in the release section, and I had mentioned that "the average player count on Steam declined significantly since the game's launch", and that the game turns free-to-play because of "the game downloadable content controversy and mixed critical reception", which is official information. Saying that it turns free-to-play because the game had died is original research. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research; there is at least one source saying that exact thing here http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-jimquisition-can-evolve-cut-down-the-bullshit-tree/ . 94.254.51.253 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @adriangamer; ah, so you're presumeably the fanboy who wrote this article then (no offence intended, but... I can't find any other way to put it, it's just an entire fanwank-article). Let's see about your claims there... THe intro section says "Prior to release, Evolve received a largely positive reception" - false, as the first thing to hit about it was the DLC and season pass things - which were literally announced prior to the game even having been unveiled and no-one knowing what it was; the pre-release reception was above all coloured by the DLC-and-edition-controversy. Also, if you're referring to the little quote here "[...] game downloadable content controversy and mixed critical reception", that little bit of text literally states "mixed critical reception" - whereas not two paragraphs down it goes on to first say that the pre-release reception was "largely positive" (which as established is untrue), but what's worse, in the actual post-release section it says "mostly positive"; so the article is literally speaking against itself ("due to mixed reception" - "mostly positive reception"): I trust I don't even have to say that that is a bad thing. Even this aside, the bias is obvious mainly in two things: 1. How badly represented the negative side of things are, as it focuses entirely on the few positives (heavily skewed in favour of the game, i.e. bias) and barely mentions all the controversy, and in the "reception" section focuses mainly on a single source, or even person (I have no idea who this "ingenito" guy is), and perhaps the worst part, no mention of the fact that he steam user reviews where "Overwhelmingly negative" - i.e., the community and player-reaction and reception of the game, something most certainly worthy of note, was "Overwhelmingly negative"; this is a fact, and should be reflected in the article... But of course, it's entirely skipped, as it's negative. 2. The fact that it's very detailed in the game-description (bordering on the line of the "Wikipedia isn't a manual"-principle), and only mentions the negative aspects and perhaps above all controversies in small, single lines, whereas they were large enough (the DLC/Version-debacle at the very least) to have their very own heading, or simply a heading saying "Controversy", detailing the backlash, the player reaction ("Overwhelmingly Negative", remember?), and the general community/journalistic reaction, which was 'not good'. 155.4.14.23 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * Prior to release, Evolve received a largely positive reception - This is correct. It won multiple awards at both E3 and Gamescom. It means that critics liked this game, and therefore it received "largely positive reception". The DLC shitstorm comes later.
 * It is extremely obvious that they are talking about the post-release reception, which is "mixed" according to them. According to Metacritic it receives generally positive reviews, which is true. The reception section is based on that. Pre-release reception is not related at all.
 * Per WP:CRITS we should never have an independent controversy section. So I mention the controversy in the release section
 * Per WP:USERG, we don't care about what you think, what I think, what fanboys think, or what haters think.
 * The article had gone through a reassessment, a good article nomination review, a DYK review and a look through from an editor from WP:GOCE, but none of them told me that I am a fanboy. May be you need to calm down and look at our guidelines first. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @adriangamer So, since you're utterly ignoring my points, let's do what you do and put them in bullets here:
 * The user reception was "Overwhelmingly Negative" - fact, and not at all reflected in the article, and notable enough that it should be in there (you know, games are played by people, and when almost all of them despise the game... That deserves mention).
 * Even after going free-to-play, user reception has only climbed up to "Mixed" - fact, and not at all reflected in the article.
 * The controversy shitstorm hit pre-release; post-E3, sure, but it hit pre-release (which was even a large part of the actual problem; so, the game isn't out yet, but we can buy DLC and skins already?), not to mention that you could pre-order it before any information other than the name and a basic description had been announced - fact(s), and not at all reflected in the article.
 * No, obviously wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think - that's what it's supposed to be like, [after all], which is the core of your problem with this article; it isn't neutral, it's biased in favour of the game (and seemingly, unfortunately, a pet-article), and I cannot remember stating that any views or opinions of mine should be reflected in the article, no?
 * You do mention that "the average player count on Steam declined significantly since the game's launch", which is an understatement - within a mere two months, there were only a few hundred players at a time online, so it should read more along the lines of "Shortly after release, the games playerbase had been reduced to almost nothing", but you know, significantly better worded than I am capable of.
 * You are entirely correct as regards the controversy-section-thing, my bad.
 * If it is so obvious that they are, then perhaps that's (another, since it should also be in the "Reception" section) good place to also mention that the reason they released it as free-to-play is that people who actually played the game were "Overwhelmingly Negative" towards it, and left it after just a few weeks?
 * I should say that I don't need to calm down, don't regress to Ad Hominem (myself, I stated that I intended no offence with the fanboy-statement, but the fact of the matter is that the article is biased, due to several of the points above) - in the same vein that it doesn't matter what you or I think, the number of mere nominations for various things is entirely meaningless, as the article can still be bad (and is, frankly, bad).
 * 155.4.14.23 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriosuly, ridicolous - read what you yourself are writing
Ok, the fanboyism strikes again, so I shall try and use use exact dots to show why the reverts and edits by "Adriangamer" (who I hope would be reading this):
 * All the edits make it say that "Some" customers had a negative reception - false, there was (Adrian removed it, of course) sourced statements that nearly all, or, as it ought to be put in article-form, the "Vast Majority" of users had a negative reaction, not "some" (but of course, it was changed to "some" in all cases, since that makes it sound better - which is, unfortunatley, seemingly the point of this article, to make it's subject matter seem better and to understate any negativity directed towards it).
 * The reason for it going free-to-play fits nicely in the lead-in, was sourced, and had exact quotes, and went through other edits (e.g. by The1337gamer) who considered it fine to be there, and it was very precise - it literally quoted the main devs stated reason for going free-to-play, I don't really see how it could be anymore "precise".
 * Jim Sterling is the very definition of a pundit - someone who discusses the industry and editorializes over it, which is half his schtick, with the other half being reviewing - and on that note, how is he not a reliable source? He is most certainly a reviewer, since, ya know, he reviews games, not to mention that he is actually quoted on metacritic; he is literally a pundit and a reviewer. He is a reliable source just as much as the frequent quotes by that IGN-guy is - someone who is quoted for all the nice things he said frequently throughout the reception.
 * Seriously, this is done just to make the subject of the article look better, AdrainGamer rejects and ignores sourced facts (such as the ones quoted in the previous discussion and will most likely here, too), makes major reverts and tones down anything negative, and I expect that he/you will continue defending and protecting this dear pet-article of his/yours; he/you are de-valuing the article by removing neutrality. 176.10.140.234 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead is supposed to be precise. We are not going to put every thing up there. Jim Sterling is not a "industry pundit" Metacritic collects bunch of unreliable sources. He and his website is nothing more but a situational source that we prefer not to use. I essentially repeat what you write with a RS (Hardcore Gamer) (aka. serving as a framework for the release of DLC). Rather than me toning down every thing that is "negative", I would consider all the edits you made too "aggressive". Your "vast majority" is not supported by the source. If I were going to see this as my extreme pet project, I would not have included any stuff about the DLC controversy in the release section, or Destructoid's 6/10 review, or the game being too niche to attract a large audience. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone else reading this at all?
Seriously, is anyone Seeing this? Adriangamer, you area literally censoring a source (writing an edit with "the page will do fine without [that person]", and a source with an opinion contrary to his/your own, at that; he removes well-sourced addons, and misquotes references (such as "reception due to the large amount of DLC planned" quotes from an article which described people as being severely upset over the amount of DLC on day one, something which I corrected and has since, at the very least, not been changed back to a misquote); however, this needs attention from someone else, as Adriangamer is, again, literally censoring a source that is disagreeing with his opinions; if that isn't biased, I don't know what is (and all of this is, of course, aside from him/you generally removing and re-phrasing any negative statements towards the subject matter in this little pet-article). Adrian, come now; surely you can see that you are in the wrong here, no? 176.10.248.196 (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I am going to be biased, and censor "a source with an opinion contrary to his/your own", I would have censored a lot of things in this article. (DLC controversy/criticism in lead, DLC controversy in release section, user score, framework for DLC, Destructoid's 6/10 review, the game's being niche, and its declining userbase). I replaced the situational source with two far more superior reliable sources (VentureBeat, Hardcore Gamer) without sacrificing the content (that's why the article would do fine without Jim Sterling). You are the one that is biased here. You are constantly pushing your "overwhelmingly negative" claim in the article without the support from reliable sources. You ignored verifiability for all the claim you make. Your own Jimquisition source does not match your "vast majority claim". When it comes to having "mixed" reception from users, I would really like to have someone that is reliable to cover it, not just a situational source. I have made my compromises for several times already, it is time for you to make yours. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you are - how much of the reception section is dedicated to a single person (whom, of course, liked the game) from IGN - not to mention the misquote I corrected earlier, where you had written "rich backstory" and "all of the hunters" - both things, of course, which were never in the actual article being referenced, but merely a biased little, "addon", shall we call it (or "false statement", as one could also say), not to mention that, again, Jim Sterling is a reliable source, he was a previous reviews editor for Destructiod, has worked for the Escapist (whose Yahtzee Croshaw also gave the game a overall negative review due to pricing, finding that only playing the monster is fun and being the trapper is boring etcetera, of course), and has been independent for some time now, with several reviews and articles under his belt as an independent author, and many more as a hired reviewer and reviews editor. How is he not a reliable source, other than that he contradicts your opinion and actually writes an article - you know, an actual source - that states that the playerbase despised the game and outright mentions and discusses the low user-scores? The bias in what you let in lies in your structure and wording; hiding away then negatives, changing factual things such as "the vast majority of users" to "some" users - seriously, there is a source in the form of Jim Sterling, and even besides that, whilst not a proper source for citation, the steam databases are right there for the viewing, with the "Overwhelmingly Negative" user reception; those are facts that you cannot get away form. You have no reason not to let an article by Jim sterling in here - aside from that it would put the subject matter of the article in a bad light, of course. You are sacrificing content by removing him, partially because more sources are better, giving a stronger base for anything written, and that it is a source that actually discusses the "Overwhelmingly Negative" user reception (and notice how saying "I am rubber, you are glue", as you are there, doesn't work, given how I've only ever used that phrase - "Overwhelmingly Negative" - when discussing the user reception, which is one of those Facts that we supposedly like here on wikipedia; again, Jim Sterling discusses it in his article that you wish to censor, and the Steam reviews haven't gone anywhere (though again, as stated, isn't an appropriate source)). How exactly, are you sources "superior", except in that they don't discuss things like Metacritic - i.e., besides that they leave out things which you personally, it seems, would rather not see on the page? Please, if you have a good reason, do share it, because I'd love to hear it, instead of what I'm getting now, which is just "they are better because they are overall softer, which suits my bias".
 * Again, since you seems to just plain be blind about that, please go use steamspy, or check the historical records of steams user reviews, or check out the co-optional podcast discussing the game as it launched free-to-play - the latter discusses the user reception (as does Jim Sterling, but he disagrees with you, of course), and you have - again, even though steam itself isn't a proper source - factual evidence of that users where "Overwhelmingly Negative" on Steam, just like how it has now reached "Mixed" reception - these are facts, and written in plain... Well, red on blue, since they're negative/mixed, and those show as red on steam. You aren't literally going to state that you know the user reception better than the actual users, are you?
 * Secondly, on metacritic, the user reception - as discussed by Jim Sterling - the user reception is also very negative, the article is literally called "Metabombed", and quotes user reviews and discusses them. Seriously, how is that not a proper, verifiable source? Again, if you genuinely have a good answer as to why Jim Sterling wouldn't be a proper source (whilst Destructiod apparently is, in spite of him having worked there, but not during the time of this games release). Oh, and in case you are going to try and fall back on that, how is Jim Sterlings article any more "Situational" than the ones you quote, exactly and precisely? And again, facts - "Overwhelmingly Negative" reception on steam within days after launch, and only changing - and to "mixed" - after the game went free-to-play; whilst steam itself isn't a proper source, for your own edification, please, check that out, as I cannot honestly bring myself to believe that you are so blind as to claim these facts not to be true.
 * And whilst you have left some ground - ground that you heavily trod and re-edited afterwards so you could keep your softer, more positive wording - (which is something I would applaud you for), that ground was only left because you had to, or so it seems, because it added things from reliable sources that you couldn't possibly argue against in any way, so you were forced to let some non-positive writing in; or so it seems, anyway. The only negatives allowed to be mentioned is that people didn't like the DLC and price - because obviously, everyone loved the actual gameplay and game, they were just complaining about money, because no-one could ever not like the actual game, right? Not to mention the frequent use of the word "complained" - whenever a reviewer had a negative view of something, he apparently didn't criticize it, he was just "complaining", or when the "storyline progresses"; there is no story progression in the game, literally none at all - seriously, your wording is in itself biased. Really, just read through the entire article yourself, have someone else read it, and see how biased in favour of the subject matter it is, and how much it goes into detail about all of the great positives, whilst minimizing the negatives; and aside from that, consider (though I presume you've already done this, considering how the article is put together) how a casual reader would leaf through it; would he/she truly get a neutral picture, or woudl the casual reader who reads the intro and reception get a 99% positive outlook on the game? Wikipedia is not advertising. 94.254.51.195 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because he worked for Destructoid doesn't mean that he is definitely reliable. We discussed about him at WP:VG/S, so it is not my call. Your content is essentially there. The "DLC vector" is still here, and what users complained is still here. DLC controversy is the main source of controversy. We have never listed every single complaint from users in these articles. He said nothing about "overwhelming negative" there. Verifiability, not truth. We don't give any single attention to user reviews. No matter they are facts or not. Yes, my version is much more softer, but that is only when compared to your aggressive version. It is their problems not discussing the user reviews. If they are classified as RS then they are superior. Your "vast majority" is subjective. You are essentially nitpicking about complain and criticize. Don't put a wall of text here. I am not "forced" to change them. I am open to all constructive advice. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's start with that I re-added the "outdated" notice; as it says in the edit, the factual accuracy *is* compromised; there is only one single gameplay-mode, there is no campaign, the nuteres abilities are not what it says in the article (e.g. all characters can revive incapacitated comrades, snipers don't "show" any vulnerable points, they create them on a hit, support-characters cannot cloak, you don't "unlock" anything except a few perks and the rest (including characters) is bought with the in-game currency, etcetera). The entire section is essentially wrong, but Beware of dragons, He who dares actually correct it instead of just adding the notice that it's wrong, since it's a pet-article; I didn't actually edit it, as it would in all due likelhood just be met with a revert, since it'd imply something negative to state the fact that they removed gamemodes etcetera, even if it is 'factually true'. If this isn't constructive, what is? You are factually wrong.
 * A reply, then; Indeed, and as it states there, "for opinions only" - he wrote an Oped (opinion editorial) on the so-called "Metabombing". DLC 'and' pricing 'and' the fact that they released DLC-packages and preorder bonuses before the game was even announced is the main source of controversy, yes. Ignoring user reviews and the like - yes, unless they're discussed in other reliable sources. Verifiability, not truth indeed - just like Neutral point of View, something which is severely lacking here, since the entire article is written in a strongly positive - not neutral - light; this is evidenced even by the fact that there were almost solely positive things written in the article (even aside from the factually incorrect gameplay-section), and only after I started adding something that wasn't positive - which met with hostility and reverts at first, of course - some had to stay simply because it was well-sourced and couldn't be denied once added, just hidden, as it was up to that point; how come barely a single dissenting point was in there prior to me looking at the page? What about the strong focus on a single reviewer (the IGN guy) who had a positive view on the game throughout the release section - which, as I'll sadly remind anyone reading this, was even directly manipulated quote-wise, with erroneous quotes ("rich backstories", anyone?) that were outright fabrications - heavily in favour of the articles subject, of course, being there; yes, that is correct, literal made-up quotes in favour of the subject; if that isn't bias, then what is? And what little dissent is mentioned is of course just small little bits about reviewers "complaining" about other aspects of the articles subject matter.
 * Here it is, again; no, it is overall soft, due the points shown above, and your aggressive reverts and re-writes, which are of course all made so as to soften any negative aspect. And that's just a lie, yet again - user reviews are not reliable sources, entirely correct - however, how is the "vast majority" subjective 'when you can literally just go check the user reviews'? Again, they'er not reliable sources, very much correct, however, it isn't "subjective" when an objective measurement - steams API - factually states that the vast majority of users were negative, hence "Overwhelmingly negative". It's not RS, suer, but it is 'not' subjective, it's an objective measurement - or do you claim to know better than an actual measurement aggregate, done by a system such as steam - you are right, and they are wrong, and I am "subjective"?
 * No "walls of text"? I.e., you just plain don't want to be told you're wrong, right? Wikipedia thrives on discussion, saying the equivalent of "TL;DR" doesn't make you a good editor, it makes you a significantly worse one; that in itself shows that you are not open, doesn't it? 176.10.140.234 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring user reviews and the like - yes, unless they're discussed in other reliable sources. - they have already been there. I have incorporated two RS into it by myself, not your Jimquisition source, so I have no idea what you are complaining besides why Jim Sterling does not get a place in this article, which I have explained for several times already. Like I have said above, I am open to any constructive criticism. If you pointed out that something is wrong, I will go to fix it. It is not like I am such a fanboy that I am going to protect my article from anyone. My update on the gameplay section is based on one source describing the changes. If they don't address the other changes then I have nothing to do. I may find several more when there are more articles coming. There is a fair amount of criticism in the reception section. Just because I used a 9/10 review does not mean that I completely ignored the negative one. (6/10) You can edit the gameplay section yourself, with the appropriate tone and the support from multiple reliable sources. I am not that kind of people who revert everything from someone. I would not revert as long as your addition is reasonable. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't misclaim the sources, now - I had a source that was an article from the guys webpage as well, not just a youtube-video; and your sources are, as you said yourself, worded much more softly and says "mixed", but it seems we've reached an impasse here, where I would argue from Jim Sterling's viability, but it won't come to be, so fine on that - even if I find that the intro-section could've used with my original edit (where it quoted the two co-founders as saying "DLC shitstorm", to emphasize that it strongly coloured the release of the game, and made people turn against it).
 * That right there seems fanboyish to me, though - how can you say that a 6 out of 10 is a negative review? That's still a net positive, that isn't a negative review, it's a positive review; 6 out of 10 is positive, not negative, it's even above average. That aside, the main problem is that the high-scoring review gets the spotlight; you always quote that first (and as stated, even made up a quote that wasn't real), and the focus is on him and his high-scoring review, is my point. Well, I'll add a review from Ars Technica, which is a good source, and hope that the gameplay-section either gets updated or at least that the warning that it is factually incorrect stays, as it currently is (and "multiple reliable sources" shouldn't really apply, there are places where you have only a single source yourself, so one is good enough); but for now, I'll just add the reivew from Ars Technica. 176.10.248.200 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Was?
If the game is still playable but with no servers, why does it say "was" like it isn't playable anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9770:6760:E8A4:3976:DA9E:2FD8 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the same happened in the "Plot" section: it said "(...) was set in a fictional future...." so I changed it to "(...) is set in a fictional future..."