Talk:SpellForce 3

Pre-GAN issues

 * Neither the lede nor the gameplay opening actually describe what the game is about, how it plays, and what is important about it (not watching, please ping ) czar  05:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that the development section is a bit lacklustre.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I'll work on that tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded both sections now, could you take another look what's missing? Thanks for your help in advance, it's my first time trying to create a good article and I appreciate all the help I can get. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

czar 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Think of how a general audience would read this article, e.g., if someone was familiar with video games as you likely are with archery (likely acquainted but knowing no details). I'd want to know what the game was about in the first few sentences (of both the lede and Gameplay)—what's the point and what happens? Is it about story or exploration or teamwork or what? Then I'd look at the detail and ask whether knowing the Alt-key menu is important for understanding the topic, or if it is more trivia. Some of that insider stuff fits better on Wikia or wikis with a different scope.
 * For Reception section composition, this guide has some good suggestions. Also claims like "mostly positive" reviews need sourcing, as they're likely to be challenged. Metacritic puts its reception as "mixed"/"average". Similar tips at WP:VGG
 * Re: "stylized as" in the lede, WP:VGG
 * Development section can be tightened into longer paragraphs with points that flow into each other and less emphasis on specific dates (per general audience point). The section might have been written from news posts with emphasis on announcement/release dates, but remember the emphasis of those news stories does not match the long-view perspective of an encyclopedia.
 * I'd check some of these sources against the video game reliable sources list and custom Google search. I imagine there are better refs for some of the basic claims cited.
 * Otherwise it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this. Nice going so far
 * I'll take a look over it tonight and leave comments below.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, I'll look forward to your comments. No rush though. I tried to address most of the things you mentioned @ but there is probably some more to do. I'm a bit struggling on how to rewrite the reception section, maybe the next days will bring some clarity. As usual, I appreciate more feedback if you find the time. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: Reception, I'd start by stacking the refs. If reviewers predominantly shared a certain thought about the game, write "multiple reviewers thought" and add multiple refs to the end of the idea. Follow that with examples that illustrate or expand upon what the multiple reviewers pinpointed. Take the quoted passages and get to the core essence—is the point to make a quotable quip (and if so what is its relevance to us?) or to make an underlying point about what makes the game interesting in context of the larger history of games? Some conclusions about the game do not need to be attributed as opinion if they merely state fact (such as something being bugged or anything that doesn't trade in feelings). And then group the info vigorously by topic so that each sentence flows into the next. (If the link was lost above, Copyediting reception sections is particularly helpful, with examples.) czar  01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had as much time as I'd have liked recently, so here are some comments. I may add to this list after they're addressed. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 04:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * role-playing / real-time strategy hybrid video game Do we need the "/" here? Wouldn't it be smoother to write "real time strategy role playing game"?
 * Is the appearance of the mage necessary in the lead?
 * Spellforce 3 is the. SP3 isn't in italics.
 * Unless I'm missing something, the first paragraph of gameplay doesn't explain what the skirmish mode is.
 * Players take control of a single character or a group of characters depending on the level in question which can be sent to different parts of the map using the mouse to click the desired place on the map. I think this can be shortened. I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to convey. Depending on the level, players assume control of either a single character or a group which can be sent to different places on the map. It's pretty self explanatory that a computer game would use the mouse, so I don't think we need to mention it.
 * I think the next few sentences about hotkeys and mouse usage could be merged. The mouse, along with hotkeys, can be used to instruct the characters in various ways, such as who to attack.
 * If you decide to disregard the idea above: used for other command, such. "command" needs an "s".
 * holding the a certain will ??
 * like more damage → such as increased damage
 * Each companion additionally → Additionally, each companion. I think this flows better.
 * three spells and/or auras at the same time, the → three spells and/or auras, the
 * little pictograms. Aren't pictograms, by nature, little?
 * on other maps he can control a whole army of units. Don't use "he".
 * If a map allows the player to control an army, they will either take over an already existing base or build a new one. Not sure what this means, and reading on doesn't give any indication.


 * Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I moved the genre description to a separate sentence. Still considering that part though. Thanks for all the feedback so far and don't worry about not having more time. Yeah, I read the essay, I just didn't have the required inspiration yet to approach that section. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely rewrote the review section, trying to follow the essay you linked to. I'd be grateful if you could take another look. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 16:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better! Be careful with generalizations, though. Any sentence in any article that can be easily challenged needs a direct reference. In this case, unless you have a single, authoritative source that asserts this, you'll need to cite each of the reviewers that assert this. And constructions such as "Reviewers praised the attention..." are open-ended but "Most critics lauded", "was generally considered a success", "multiplayer options received little discussion" are not. (We cannot discern the entire field of criticism or what "most" critics think, as obvious though it may be. We depend on reliable sources to have command of the field for those assertions.) Instead get less specific: cast as "Critics lauded", citing the examples. There are a lot of reviews I would strike here. What makes the opinion of Mammoth Gamers or SelectButton worth noting? Looks like hobbyist blogs to me. Better off with a shorter section and reliable reviews (WP:VG/RS) than to drag out opinions from an unreliable press. I also personally recommend striking reviewer names whenever possible unless the reviewer herself is wikilinked and important. Most often the reviews are treated as belonging to the publication, not the reviewer. I think most of the short quotes can be paraphrased without losing their sentiment too. We're trained to think of these kind of quotes as the flavor of the review, but if you try to paraphrase the sentiment holistically, you can often put the reviewer's thoughts more succinctly for our purposes.  czar  15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes. I'll have a look tomorrow. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 20:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks against for all your help so far, although if that is the pre-GAN review, I shudder to think what will follow if and when a GA review is actually taking place. I tossed out those sources and (hopefully) made the necessary changes based on your suggestions. Since VG/RS is somewhat incomplete, can you maybe point out other sources you think should be removed? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * :) Usually pre-GAN comments are subsumed into the actual review but after the above, there won't be much left for the GA review! especially since you've done an excellent job with everything discussed so far. Sources that don't strike me as having editorial pedigree or reputation for reliability: GameSpace, Capsule Computers, WCCF Tech, TechRaptor, GameCrate, Darkstation, Game Debate. Not familiar with the pcgames.de (physical mag) but looks okay and didn't get feedback from anyone last time I asked about 4Players.de. Looks like your German is better than mine so perhaps you'd have some advice on that one czar  16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the RS question at VG/RS talk, I'll comment there. I agree on some, although WCCFTech and TechRaptor seem reliable enough to me (the latter mainly received backlash because of GamerGate at VG/RS talk but some did agree that their recent stuff might be reliable. 4Players is owned by de:Computec Media Group, who also owns PC Games, so I think they should be reliable (Computec owns a number of magazines and websites, such as LinuxUser and Linux Magazine). Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 17:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have removed GameSpace, Capsule Computers, Darkstation and Game Debate. For WCCFTech I'd like to wait for the VG/RS talk to finish and I think TechRaptor is fine as situational in this case. The consensus for GameCrate was situational as well and I think the review in this case is acceptable but I will not fight about it if this is criticized. Maybe a third opinion might a be helpful (pinging @)? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 14:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but for TechRaptor, this active discussion shows a consensus opposite your conclusion (also, as mentioned there, "situational" is a deprecated designation—either a site has editorial process and thus reliability or it doesn't) czar  02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about GameCrate. Most of the authors' bios are like "I like video games and I've been writing for x years". With that said, it is owned by Newegg. I've noticed that in the article, all uses of GameCrate are backed up with another source (at least). Perhaps it's best to remove it or create a formal discussion at WP:VG/RS (been a year since the last). <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 03:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as Ferret put it, there might be a case there to separate reviews under the old staff from those under the new one (hence the "situational"). But I will listen to consensus if that's it.
 * Fair enough. Discussions seem quit slow at VG/RS talk at the moment and I already raised multiple sites there, so I probably shouldn't start more discussions right now, lest the mob lynches me Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Situational" in that usage applies to any site: generally do not accept a site as reliable for statements of fact until it is proven to have editorial process or pedigree, with any exceptions specifically argued (e.g., an expert-written self-published source cited for uncontroversial, minor detail not covered anywhere else). But even in those cases, a plainly reliable source is preferable. It's fine to let this play out at WPVG/RS as you wish, but the sources in question are only being used for opinion statements, no? The Gameplay & Dev are sourced reliably and there are plenty of other sources already in use in the Reception. Question is whether the article is better or worse for having more color commentary from potentially/likely unreliable sources as opposed to tighter, more trustworthy prose. But that's the last I have to say on that topic czar  10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand the "less sources but better instead of more sources but worse" approach and I had already removed both GameCrate and TechRaptor from the article. Again, your help with all this was and is invaluable and I hope I haven't annoyed you too much with my constant questions :) Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 10:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Images
I fail to see how the character creation image and the image in the reception section pass Non-free_content_criteria. The character creation screen can be adequately described in the text and is pretty standard as far as character creation processes go. The image doesn't tell us anything text cannot. As for the image in the reception section, the critics did not go into any particular details on their comments of the graphics, so the image is not needed to convey a specific concept to the reader. Help me understand why omitting the images would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of either passage. TarkusAB talk 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I just left you a message before I saw this one. I got to run now but I will reply later. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 17:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll concede that the first on, the character creation, can be disputed whether this is really necessary. I think it is because while the text can describe the selection process, only the screenshot will allow readers not familiar with the game understand what exactly can be customized and what not. If, however, in the GAN review (if and when it takes places) the reviewer feels that this should be removed, I will comply.
 * The latter one, I think, is definitely necessary. Words cannot adequately describe the level of visual detail and the different kinds of settings as well as the improved realism without actually seeing an example of the graphics and since this was a main point of praise by almost all critics (even those who bemoaned that it was overwhelming), it fits perfectly in the reception section. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree that the character creation screen should go. Neutral on the other one as I agree with arguments from both sides. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)