Talk:Threads of Fate/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm slowly finding more time for this, and happy to take this review on. I'll try to get to it within a week. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to work through the article section by section, and return to the lead at the end.


 * Gameplay
 * Really solid opening sentence and paragraph.
 * "allowing transformation into them to access their abilities" -> this phrasing is a little awkward. Maybe "allowing him to transform into that monster and use its abilities."
 * It might help to say that monsters drop monster coins, before you talk about collecting them to transform. Just introduce the concept. If the coins provide any other bonus, this is a good place to state it.
 * The writing here is generally solid. Great work.
 * Synopsis
 * It might be good to establish the two characters in the first sentence: "Threads of Fate follows two different characters: an amnesiac named Rue, and a princess named Mint." If this repeats some stuff from the gameplay section, I actually think it's better to say it here in the synopsis. But a little repetition isn't bad.
 * The writing here is decent but there are times where sentences run on a bit. They might benefit from being split into shorter sentences.
 * "Depending on the protagonist, the overall sequence of events varies," -> "The next sequence varies depending on the protagonist,"
 * "In his route, Rue" -> "On Rue's journey, he"
 * ... this same sentence is an example of one that probably works better as two separate sentences.
 * "and mend their" -> "and the sisters mend their"
 * "and fight Valen after he successfully possesses Rue" -> maybe pull this into its own sentence too.
 * Development
 * "multiple notable titles including" -> "multiple notable titles, including"
 * "He also wanted to create a game that could be played by those of low skill level in action titles" -> "He also wanted to create an action game that could be played by those of low skill level" (if this doesn't change the meaning too much)
 * "which during that period was encouraging production on smaller "challenging" projects" -> this is interesting, but what does it mean when a project is both smaller and challenging?
 * "continue developing for the PlayStation which retained to have a strong market presence" -> "continue developing for the PlayStation due to its large audience."
 * "gimicks" -> is it actually spelt that way?
 * "preserving their aim of creating" -> "preserving their goal of creating"
 * "with the extensive experience of team members in 3D graphics preventing the project from running into problems" -> "with the team avoiding many problems thanks to their extensive experience in 3D graphics."
 * "both exaggerated and realistic" -> this feels like a bit of a contradiction. Is there a better way to say it?
 * "Additional movements such as flowing cloth in a character's outfit was hand-animated" -> "Additional movements were hand-animated, such as the flowing cloth in a character's outfit."
 * A lot of the music section is referenced to the liner notes, and not third-party sources. It's generally well-written, but do you think there is any issue with WP:UNDUE weight?
 * I figure that's a lot to work with so far. Let's start there and see how it improves. The article is very close to WP:GA quality and it won't take much more work. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hopefully addressed your current concerns, which really aren't that big. This isn't turning into the disaster that the Panzer Dragoon Orta GAN was (that made me nervous to nominate anything for anything after that). As to the music issue, I tried to find other sources, but this was all I could find as it hasn't been talked about that much. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're doing good so far and we can keep going. I might consider trimming the music section down to what's supported in third-party sources instead of relying too much on primary sources. But I wouldn't push too hard on this, and I'd just ask you to keep in mind the policy on WP:DUE weight.
 * Release
 * Even on the English language Wikipedia, it can't hurt to say what the Japanese name is. It's only a word or two.
 * "The final title was created late in development, with the word "prism" selected early on, but Square's upper management needing convincing about the final "Dewprism" title after Sugiyama created it in January 1999" -> I think this sentence jumbles the timeline unnecessarily. You could write it in a more sequential order, even breaking it into multiple sentences if necessary.
 * To my last point, the chronology gets muddled in here. The re-releases can be mentioned at the end of the section. This section should primarily focus on the main release.
 * I'm not sure if it's relevant to know what projects the localization team worked on after. Stay focused on this game.
 * "An interactive game demo, covering the opening zone up to the first boss, was packaged with early copies of Vagrant Story." -> "An interactive game demo was packaged with early copies of Vagrant Story, featuring the beginning of the game up to the first boss."
 * Reception
 * "attributing this to released alongside other major titles from both Square and other companies" -> "attributing this to competition from other major titles by titles both Square and other companies."
 * I think it's good for a reception section to start where the sources have a consensus. Save the mixed stuff for later (unless mixed criticism is explicitly stated in the sources). On that note, I'd save the general criticism of the controls until the end of the section.
 * "Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu were positive" -> "Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu was positive"
 * "of the time after Brave Fencer Musashi." -> "of the time, after Brave Fencer Musashi."
 * "but noted "boring" levels and problems with the automatic targeting" -> "but criticized the targeting system and the "boring" level design."
 * "The three Electronic Gaming Monthly all noted criticised a lack of depth and control issues." -> try a rewrite?
 * "though noted its high difficulty and fast pace might be off-putting to fans of Square's slower-paced RPG titles" -> "but felt that fans of traditional Square games may find this game too fast or difficult."
 * "RPGFan writer Stahn Mahn enjoyed the gameplay despite its simple design, and described the controls as responsive and easy to use despite awkward camera angles impacting platforming sections" -> I think this is a lot of thoughts jammed into one sentence and could be more focused.
 * "Andrew Long of RPGamer faulted a lack of variety in Rue's monster designs and general lack of variety or evolution in the combat and progression systems" -> "Andrew Long of RPGamer felt the game was repetitive in its combat and character progression, including Rue's monster designs."
 * The graphics/sound paragraph is generally well written, but it might be helpful to focus on graphics first, and sound second. It's a little confusing to jump back and forth.
 * "Famitsu positively noted that the simple gameplay design meant players could focus on enjoying the story" -> "Famitsu praised the simple gameplay for allowing players to focus on the story."
 * "was involved" -> is there a better word? the meaning here is ambiguous
 * "GamePro noted that while Rue's story was immediately engaging but standard, Mint had a non-standard opening and became more likeable as the game progressed" -> "GamePro noted that Rue's story was engaging from the start, while Mint's has a more unique story as her character develops."
 * "Bass noted the narrative's turn into a more epic style later in the game after its simple opening premise" -> "Bass praised the narrative's transformation from a simple opening to an epic ending."
 * "Long described the different campaign premises as well-worn despite some twists, and faulted the localization as seeming rushed due to punctuation and spelling mistakes" -> "Long faulted the localization for punctuation and spelling mistakes, but described the story as fun, if also simple."
 * "Electronic Gaming Monthly felt that the story took too long to become interesting for players and lacked interesting characters, compounding the short length of each campaign" -> "However, Electronic Gaming Monthly felt that the story lacked interesting characters, and took too long to become interesting."
 * Legacy
 * It can't hurt to recap Sugiyama's role for this section.
 * "Sugiyama had ideas for a sequel, teased in the game's ending, but he initially was occupied learning to develop for the PlayStation 2. A pitch to Square Enix in 2004 was turned down, and by the mid-2010s the gaming market had shifted away from home consoles, though he still wants a sequel" -> "Sugiyama teased his ideas for a sequel in the game's ending, but he became busy with mastering development on the Playstation 2. Square rejected a sequel pitch in 2004, and the game market shifted away from home consoles by the mid-2010s. Sugiyama has expressed interest in returning for a sequel in 2015."
 * "saying that the music he later created for Final Fantasy X would have been completely different otherwise" -> "shaping the style he used in Final Fantasy X."
 * "mobile game Rampage Land Rankers" -> "mobile game, Rampage Land Rankers"
 * That might be a lot but I believe you'll be close to GA if we do this. We can give it one more pass whenever you get through that. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope I've addressed everything you raised, and again not as bad as Orta. I just moved the PSN releases into Legacy, simplified things. Did my best with reception, hope I didn't miss anything. GANs are seem to be a lot more work recently; either I'm seriously slipping (which is bad) or standards have gotten better (which is very good). Anyway, ready for a second pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All these comments are meant in good spirit. Your work is an asset to Wikipedia, and all of this is just to collaborate and make things better. Sometimes an article is already at a high quality, and some of my suggestions are pushing things closer to WP:FA. Either way, let's give this one more read and wrap it up.
 * Lead
 * "with each character having unique abilities." -> I sometimes struggle with whether to state the obvious, but it feels like you could probably drop this without losing anything. People will understand there are two main characters, and if they want to learn more, they can read the gameplay section.
 * "While" -> you use this a few times close together and it can't hurt to vary the language.
 * "While the game met with generally positive reviews, with many praising its action combat and graphics, it met with low sales." -> "The game received generally positive reviews for its combat and graphics, but it was a commercial disappointment."
 * "Several staff cited the game as informing their later work." -> "Several team members cited the game as influencing their later work."
 * Second pass...
 * "used to transform into them and access their abilities" -> "allowing him to transform into them and access their abilities"
 * "Carona also features a chapel where donations can alter elements within the game, an item shop, and a hostel where the character can stay to recover HP and receive bonuses" -> "Carona also features an item shop, a hostel where characters can recover HP, and a chapel where donations can alter elements within the game."
 * "collecting replenishing bottles" -> this phrasing feels a little confusing
 * "They can either quit the game to restart from an earlier save, return to Carona at the cost of half their items, or use a consumable Coin of Life to restart immediately with differing statistical modifiers depending on the coin type used" -> "They can either restart from an earlier save, return to Carona at a cost of half their items, or restart immediate with new attributes by consuming a Coin of Life."
 * "Depending on the protagonist, the story varies, though both end up in Valen's fortress, awoken from hibernation by Doll Master." -> "The story varies depending on the protagonist, though Doll Master awakens each character from hibernation in Valen's fortress"
 * "Valen first attempts to use a restored Claire as his vessel, then Rue, being stopped by the rebellious Doll Master whom Valen kills." -> this part is confusing and might warrant two sentences
 * "and mend their" -> "and the sisters mend their"
 * "new scenes show Rue adopting another of Valen's Dolls, and Mint persuading Rue to accompany her on another adventure for an Aeon artifact." -> "Rue adopts another one of Valen's Dolls, and Mint persuades Rue to join her search for an Aeon artifact."
 * "which during that period was encouraging production on smaller projects" -> "which was encouraging smaller projects at the time"
 * "such as Mint landing in a pond after attempting to drop-kick Rue," -> this might be a little unimportant? It's enough to know he added jokes. But if it's that important, I might break up this sentence so it doesn't run on so much
 * "Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu was positive the gameplay simplicity" -> I think a word is missing here
 * "Several reviewers found issues with the in-game camera and controls, and there were inconsistent opinions on the difficulty" -> "Critics had mixed opinions on the game's difficulty, and several reviewers found issues with the in-game camera and controls."
 * "The 3D graphics were praised" -> "Journalists generally liked the 3D graphics."
 * "a focus on character models over the environment despite overall quality" -> this one is a bit confusing
 * That's pretty much gonna be it. Thanks for your work on this, and I'm looking forward to taking it across the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All addressed, I think. And don't mind my occasional self-doubt. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience and hard work. I gave it one more read and the article is in great shape. Congratulations on another GA. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)