Talk:Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar

John Walker's quote
John Walker's comment under an article is not a review. HorarioS needs to stop pushing his own agenda, eg. including lengthy quotes of every single criticism mentioned in an article and then reverting changes that trim down those quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.120.127.207 (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Before using the talk page, please consult WP:TPYES. Thank you. HoratioS (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * and, both of you are over WP:3RR. I've protected the page - please work this dispute out here instead of reverting further. My protection should not be construed as endorsement of a certain version of the page. GABgab 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

, I would respectfully request further details about how the information you deleted from the page violated wikipedia guidelines. Thank you most kindly and have a nice day. HoratioS (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed down the excessive quotes you inserted into the article and left a neutral summary. You are familiar with WP:NPOV, correct? Furthermore, a user comment under an article is not a "sidebar" and therefore not a reliable source. That is why that reference to the user comment made by John Walker should be deleted. See WP:RS.

Let's compare the Gamestar review versions:

HoratioS: ''GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn described Grimoire as unfinished, cheaply made and broken, while criticising the absence of voice acting in dialogues and the lack of a German translation. In summary, he stated that "Grimoire deserves no pity just because it's an indie game", awarding a score of 30/100.''

LadyError: ''GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn harshly criticized the game and stated that "Grimoire deserves no pity just because it's an indie game", awarding a score of 30/100. However, he also mentioned that the game may receive another review once the manual comes out and the game balance has been adjusted.''

Your version focuses on negative quotes and remarks and leaves out information - the second sentence in my summary. Your version is not neutral.

The RPS review versions compared:

HoratioS: ''Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer posted an article covering his attempt to write a review, which he said failed due to the game's "grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea".[2] Due to the difficulty in taking screenshots, the article was partially illustrated with promotional images, and the game had to be restarted due to updates making savegames unusable. The article, while noting that Grimoire successfully created the illusion of a large game world, came to the conclusion that the core design elements of the game were "monstrously wrong-headed", "hateful", and comparable to mental torture.[2]''

LadyError: Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer posted an article in which he noted that while Grimoire "successfully creates the illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets", the core design elements of the game were "monstrously wrong-headed".

Your version focuses on overly long negative quotes instead of a neutral summary. You changed the reviewers only positive remark from "illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets" to "illusion of a large game world". Again your version is not neutral.

Motherboard review versions:

HoratioS: Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that "I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore."[3]

LadyError: Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that "There's little doubt that Grimoire fills a niche that hasn't been filled in a while, and I know I'm part of the demographic he's aiming for. In my old age, though, I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

You misrepresent the reviewer's conclusion by cutting away anything that may sound positive. Again, your version is not neutral.

Also, you have included this unsourced claim at the end:

"One point touched on by many publications covering the game was the lack of any manual or documentation included, which, combined with an interface considered to be obtuse, led to many reviewers having difficulty figuring out how to play the game.[citation needed]"

Which publications are you talking about? Either provide sources in addition to the ones above or this section needs to be deleted. LadyError (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As a third party view, this was said on 's talk page:

"Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)" LadyError (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you cite WP:RS in an attempt to show that John Walker is not a reliable source. Can you expand on your reasoning? In general, it is good form to cite the precise guideline which you think supports your point.

In my opinion, this statement from WP:NEWSORG - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - is enough to justify the inclusion of the opinion of John Walker commenting on the Grimoire review in his capacity as the widely respected senior editor of Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

Tackling your comments on my representation of each review:

- In the Gamestar summary, I attempted to give information representative of the article itself. Your version cites only the game balance and the lack of a manual as targets of criticism, even though these two subjects are only mentioned in passing in the original review and are only relevant to the question of whether the reviewer would consider writing another review. Instead, the review goes to great lengths to detail the various ways in which the reviewer considers the game to be unfinished, cheaply made and outright broken. (If you wish, we can discuss the specific lines of the original review that refer to these points.) Since these are the focal points of the reviewer's criticism, I consider them important enough for inclusion in a summary. It is appropriate that a reader should be confronted with a list of negative criticisms when reading the summary of a review that awards 30/100 points.

As for the other line you wished to retain: "However, he also mentioned that the game may receive another review once the manual comes out and the game balance has been adjusted." I cannot find this information anywhere in the cited source. Can you quote the exact line where the reviewer makes this statement?

- In the Rock Paper Shotgun summary, I once again listed the concrete criticisms levelled against the game by its reviewer. The reviewer's key areas of praise and criticism constitute essential information for any summary. When more reviews become available, these claims will be collated by claim rather than by site, as outlined in WP:VGG: "Stack similar claims." Wikipedia encourages the listing of specific claims to inform the reader.

You are taking issue with my paraphrase of the words: "successfully creates the illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets." If you were to produce a paraphrase that reflected the original line more accurately, I would be happy to see it incorporated into our collaborative article.

- In the Motherboard summary, I came to the conclusion that the original quote was too long and could be truncated without losing relevant information, thereby alleviating the overquotation problem of this section. If you were to produce a paraphrase that reflected the original line more accurately, I would be happy to see it incorporated into our collaborative article.

- The unsourced claim at the end of the article was originally created by when he created the article. Please contact him to clarify whether this line can be sourced. If he cannot source it, I would support its deletion.

The comment by also applied to another claim originally made by. The original line by was "which failed due to inaccessibility and frequent bugs and crashes". The article was subsequently vandalized, and the line read "which failed due to him being incredibly casual". I then reverted the change to the previous version by, which was then deleted by. I will invite to make a statement whether his deletion constitutes a third party view on your allegations of bias. I wish you a pleasant and productive day. HoratioS (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

--

1. I support deleting the unsourced claim at the end of the article which was originally created by. On this I agree with you, HoratioS.

2. Anyone who compares your summary of the Rock Paper Shotgun review to the actual review will find that you cite only the criiticisms, while omitting the various key areas of praise throughout the article. This does not fairly represent the RPS review.

The conclusion of the RPS review shows key areas of praise you omitted:

''"I admire the size of this thing, the vision of it, the dedication. The labour of love is clear, and I have no doubt that it is going to absolutely delight those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best for decades. But I think of 600, 300, 100, even 20 more hours of my life spent this way, this glacial churn, and I cannot accept such a fate. I’m glad Grimoire’s real after all this time, I’m glad it’s done what it set out to do 20 years ago, and I acknowledge entirely that its development began in a very different age of game design, that it has all been handled by just one man and, as such, certain expectations are entirely unfair. Neither that or my curiosity about what it will throw at me next means that I can abide the grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea. I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not."''

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/08/09/grimoire-the-rpg-20-years-in-the-making-is-a-crazily-tough-nut-to-crack/

A neutral summary of this review's conclusion should be:

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer states in an article that he admires the size of the the game and the dedication behind it, noting that "the labour of love is clear". While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, Alec Meer also harshly criticizes the slow combat, the "desperately cumbersome" user interface and the sound. His conclusion: "I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not." Senior editor John Walker wrote a comment to the article, stating that some players who claimed to be enjoying Grimoire were being dishonest.

3. The Gamestar review in German has this conclusion:

"Grafik und Sound mal außen vor - mit Balancing-Anpassungen, dem Hinzufügen der fehlenden Features, einer brauchbaren Anleitung und Anpassungen an der Benutzeroberfläche könnte Grimoire ein richtig gutes Rollenspiel der alten Schule sein. In seinem jetzigen Zustand ist es unfertig, kaputt, benutzerfeindlich und wird zum Vollpreis angeboten."

(In English: "Aside from the graphics and sound - with some adjustement of the balance, addition of missing features, a manual and adjustments to the user interface, Grimoire could become a really good oldschool RPG. In its current state, it is unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price.")

http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/grimoire-heralds-of-the-winged-exemplar-retro-masochismus-fuer-37-euro,3318816,fazit.html

Your summary misrepresents this review by citing only the criticisms and leaving out key areas of information. A neutral summary of this review's conclusion would be:

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticized the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but noted that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG". In summary, he states that currently the game is "unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price", awarding a score of 30/100.

4. Let's look at the conclusion at the end of the Motherboard article:

"There's little doubt that Grimoire fills a niche that hasn't been filled in a while, and I know I'm part of the demographic he's aiming for. In my old age, though, I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore. "Greatest RPG of them all?" Eh, I'll stick with The Witcher 3."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xx4mv/is-this-game-that-started-development-20-years-ago-the-greatest-rpg-of-them-all

A neutral summary of this review should include all relevant points made by the reviewer, not just that he doesn't "have time for this kind of punishment anymore." A neutral short summary of this review should be:

Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that even though Grimoire fills a niche that has not been filled for a while, personally he does not "have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

5. In summary, here is my proposal for the Reception section:

Reception

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticizes the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but notes that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG". In summary, he states that currently the game is "unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price", awarding a score of 30/100.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer states in an article that he admires the size of the the game and the dedication behind it, noting that "the labour of love is clear". While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, Alec Meer also harshly criticizes the slow combat, the "desperately cumbersome" user interface and the sound. His conclusion: "I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not." Senior editor John Walker wrote a comment to the article, stating that some players who claimed to be enjoying Grimoire were being dishonest.

Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson concludes that even though Grimoire fills a niche that has not been filled for a while, personally he does not "have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

LadyError (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Warm greetings to you,. Have you spoken with about the unsourced claim at the end of the article? It would be a show of goodwill to give him a chance to supply a source before moving forward with its deletion.

- As regards the Rock Paper Shotgun article, I warmly repeat my invitation to you to consult WP:VGG. It is helpful and appropriate to list the specific claims made by each writer, so that they may eventually be collated by claim rather than by publication as more reviews become available. As such, it is appropriate to note that Mr. Meer considers the game to be a form of "torture", which may later be merged with Mr. Johnson describing the game as a form of "punishment". Exactly those quotes which point a path towards an emerging critical consenus are most precious to our collaborative effort. They should not be deleted.

It is my understanding that you have decided to paraphrase Mr. Meer's words: "I have no doubt that it is going to absolutely delight those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best for decades," as follows: "While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, ...". I am truly sorry to confront you so bluntly over this matter, but I believe that your paraphrase is lacking in accuracy compared to the original quote. The quote says nothing about "fans of older RPGs"; in my interpretation, Mr. Meer specifically refers to long-term fans ("for decades") who not only like older games, but who expressly and explicitly prefer them to newer games ("those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best"). Mr. Meer's comment should also not be framed as an "acknowledgement" as if it were a factual truth that all people who prefer old games would be delighted by Grimoire. That is not a proven fact, but merely a posit by Mr. Meer. A more accurate paraphrase in my mind would be "While claiming that Grimoire would "absolutely delight" those who believe that the best video games were made decades ago, ..." I will note that Mr. Meer does not strictly mention video games at all in his quote, and that it might perhaps be better to directly quote the entire sentence and remedy the overquotation problem of this section by paraphrasing another quote.

- Since you have not mentioned Mr. Penzhorn's supposed promise of a re-review in your revised summary of his review, I will be bold enough to presume that you agree to deleting this sentence from your original edit. I warmly invite anybody else who might be able to supply a source for this statement to come forward before we move ahead with its deletion.

You translate "mit Balancing-Anpassungen" as "with some adjustment to the balance". Where does the "some" come from? And would "adjustments" in the plural not perhaps be a more perfect way of translating "Anpassungen", which is also a plural word? And in my view, "userfeindlich" is better translated as "hostile to users" ("feindlich" meaning "hostile") rather than "user-unfriendly" (which would have been "user-unfreundlich" in the original German). Being "unfriendly" is not the same thing as being downright "hostile"; your proposed version might make Mr. Perzhorn's words seem more lenient than they appear in the original German. Perhaps similarly, you translate "dem Hinzufügen der fehlenden Features" as "addition of missing features," omitting the article "der" (meaning "the") from your translation. Your error was doubtlessly innocent in nature, but it rather distorts the meaning of Mr. Penzhorn's remark; adding "missing features" can mean adding two features out of twenty that are missing. Adding "the missing features" can generally be taken to mean adding every single missing feature. In the interest of citing specific claims, it would also be useful to note specifically which features Mr. Penzhorn expects to be added, as listed in the body of his review.

That any mention of these missing features alleged by Mr. Penzhorn is omitted from your summary of his remarks puzzles and bemuses me. May I be so forward as to ask about your reasoning for that omission? Your own translation of the review's summary, put forward just one paragraph earlier, makes it clear that Mr. Penzhorn expects these features to be implemented:

"Aside from the graphics and sound - with some adjustement of the balance, addition of missing features, a manual and adjustments to the user interface, Grimoire could become a really good oldschool RPG. In its current state, it is unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price."

Your summary of these these elements:

"GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticized the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but noted that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG"."

Where did the criticism of the game's sounds the lack of a manual and the missing features go? This line is already a paraphrase, so there is no need to be mindful of overquotation. I would courteously encourage you to revise this passage with a conscientious eye.

Along the same lines, we are bound by our duty as Wikipedia contributors to highlight those points that are common to each reviewer's reception of Grimoire. Because Mr. Meer, Mr. Penzhorn, and Mr. Johnson all explicitly criticise Grimoire's sound, lack of a manual, graphics, overall technical quality, and difficulty, and come away with an impression of having been "tortured" or having "endured" a "punishment", these areas ought to be mentioned in any article that attempts to render a fair and balanced representation of the game's reception. Furthermore, both Mr. Penzhorn and Mr. Johnson describe the game as unfinished, and both Mr. Meer and Mr. Penzhorn criticise the game's balance and point out that none of the party members seem to have any sort of personality. Because these claims were made by two or three different experts writing independently of each other, they are of particular value to our encyclopedic purpose.

I feel that any good summary of Grimoire's reception at this stage needs to list at least the most important of these intersubjective criticisms to fulfill its purpose. If we can find a positive remark that was shared by several reviewers (perhaps about the game's appeal to hardcore fans) it could also earn an elevated position within the reception section, though we must be mindful that our summary does not create a more positive impression of the game than is supported by the articles themselves. Since each of the three writers describes his gameplay experience as a form of suffering or torture, we ought not to imply that any of them enjoyed playing the game.

The criticisms of the game's sound and graphics can perhaps be summarized as "low production values", which would leave us with an initial sentence along the lines of "The first articles after Grimoire's release criticised the game's lack of a manual as well as its perceived low production values, poor technical quality, and high difficulty," followed by a summary of each reviewer's more idiosyncratic remarks. Does that sound acceptable to you?

With only the best of wishes, HoratioS (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved
I'm not going to bother reading this wall of text but I'll point out some things: --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the overquotation tag to the article because this revision is horribly written: . It is excessive cherry picking of short quotes that are taken out of context and lean towards giving the section a negative point of view. Good articles and receptions sections are written through decent paraphrasing, not copying a list of quotes in. From our guidelines: Minimize direct quotations. Prefer paraphrase whenever possible, both for Wikipedia's emphasis on minimizing use of copyrighted content and to massage the essence of the source into what best suits the section. Almost all reviewer sentiments can be rephrased without using the source's exact words/phrases. Use quotations only to illustrate that which cannot be said better than the source. Reception sections that consist purely of quotations are treated as copyright violations. (WP:VG/GL)
 * Quoting John Walker from the comment section of the RPS article is really just scrapping the bottom of the barrel. There's plenty of material to work with in the article. We shouldn't be giving undue weight to a comment responding to other user comments, even if it was made by a staff writer. Stick to the critique in the published article.

Comments on the edits made by HoratioS
We have now three editors who see bias and lack of neutrality in the edits made by in this article. His long replies here lack constructive proposals and instead seem to focus on nitpicking while ignoring the problem of bias and lack of neutrality in his edits.

LadyError (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to add, I am impressed by in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and how quickly he can cite them. I am just confused by the fact that is a new account that has only edits of this page in its history. , do you have another account and if so, why aren't you just posting with your regular account?

LadyError (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , please consult WP:SPI for instructions on how to start a sockpuppeting investigation. Have a pleasant day. HoratioS (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

, I defer to your judgment on how to rewrite the article properly.

LadyError (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit I will post in the article, it includes some changes proposed by HoratioS in order to have NPOV:

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticizes the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but notes that with the inclusion of missing features, a manual, as well as adjustments to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG". In summary, he states that currently the game is "unfinished, broken, hostile to its users and is being offered at full price", awarding it a score of 30/100.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer states in an article that he admires the size of the the game and the dedication behind it, noting that "the labour of love is clear". However, he also harshly criticizes the slow combat, the "desperately cumbersome" user interface and the sound. His conclusion: "I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not."

Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson concludes that even though Grimoire fills a niche that has not been filled for a while, personally he does not "have time for this kind of punishment anymore." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyError (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)