Talk:Traitors Gate (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Megaman en m (talk · contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Saw the backlog in video game GA nominees, decided to do something about it. This is my first time reviewing a nominated article.


 * Thanks for taking the time to review this article! I knew a reviewer would come along eventually, but Traitors Gate is the longest wait I've ever had for a GAN review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Some preliminary notes:


 * ✅What is the rationale for including the listed games in the see also section? None of them are made by the same developer and only two are published by the same publisher.


 * ✅ As a suggestion, MOS:VG says that the release dates in the infobox don't need to be sourced if it's already adequately sourced in the body.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed the citations. As for the "See also" games, those were adventure titles published/localized by DreamCatcher Interactive in North America during 2000, alongside Traitors Gate. (Faust doesn't list DreamCatcher in its infobox yet, but I'll get to that eventually—the publisher's involvement is detailed in the Development section of that article.) I've been doing a lot of work on the early DreamCatcher adventure game line over the last year or so, and wanted a way for people to find related articles on the subject. The publisher's catalog isn't really suited to a navigation template, though, so I figured that adding a few relevant articles to a "See also" section would be the next best thing. As for the specific games I chose, the logic was:
 * Dracula: Resurrection was one of the top 4 DreamCatcher sellers in 2000, alongside Traitors Gate, Atlantis II and The Crystal Key. (It's a goal of mine to get all four of these to GA status.)
 * Riddle of the Sphinx is another of DreamCatcher's big sellers, and like Traitors Gate was based on the careful reconstruction of a physical location (in this case, ancient Egyptian buildings).
 * Faust was released in Europe in 1999 and localized by DreamCatcher in 2000, just like TG. Both titles were part of what was called the "culturetainment" movement, which produced games based on real-world locations and/or famous literary/mythical subject matter.
 * Hope that makes sense! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, although I'm not sure so much weight should be put on the publisher rather than the developer of the game. Anyways, don't think it's a big deal, it can stay that way I think.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's my take on the article's writing style. I might have gone overboard with my critique, most of these criticisms are probably irrelevant to attaining GA status, but it's better to nitpick than to not be critical at all (maybe).

Lead:

1. ✅"...try to steal and replace the Crown Jewels of England for their protection." For the protection of the Crown Jewels? It's a bit confusing without having read the plot summary. It sounds like Raven is supposed to prevent the real Crown Jewels from being stolen, not "steal" it for himself. Maybe write it like "... try to swap out the Crown Jewels of England with a forgery for its protection.", or something like that.
 * I understand what you mean here, but the premise of the game is that you're stealing the Crown Jewels—it was pitched this way consistently in the branding, in the reviews, the third-party coverage, etc. If anything, the thing I wrote in the gameplay/plot section is the inaccurate part. I've tried a compromise: "trying to steal and replace the Crown Jewels of England to safeguard them from a rogue agent." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

2.✅ The second sentence describes who Raven is and what he does in the story, while the third sentence state that the player plays as Raven. Don't think it has to be changed, but maybe there's a way to combine these two statements without the sentences being too long?
 * This is a formulation I've been using for years in lead paragraphs—the story/premise in one sentence, including the protagonist's name, and then the player's relationship to the protagonist in the next sentence (and what the gameplay is). This includes GAs (The Space Bar, Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans) and FAs (Thief II). I've never had any complaints about it before, and I think it's a pretty seamless way to introduce the core concepts of a game without putting too much into one sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

3.✅ "production took roughly three years to complete." Maybe production should be replaced with the game?
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

4.✅ It mentions the cost of the game in dollars, but later on it uses Swedish krona. Should it use krona with the equivalent in dollars mentioned in parentheses?
 * The krona/dollar issue was a nightmare on this article, so I just tried what I thought was the cleanest solution. The only dollar-based figure in the sources was a rough estimate by Papworth at the bottom of the Production section—I opted to use that in the lead. Basically all of the other existing sources reported expenses in kr, and it's not too easy to pin down the conversion of mid-90s krona to mid-90s dollars. Inflation of the dollar needs to be accounted for, and krona and dollars converted in an awkward way even back then (the developers themselves had trouble figuring out the conversion at the time). So, while I agree that a krona/dollar conversion would be ideal for the lead, I'm just not sure it's possible without some sort of expert weighing in. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think this matters that much for attaining GA in the grand scheme of things.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

5.✅ "by 2000 was distributed", I'd prefer it as "by 2000 it was distributed".
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay and plot:

1.✅ In the image caption, should "Queen's House" be fully capitalized? Is it referring to where the Queen lives or is it actually a proper name referring to that location? I don't know myself.
 * This was a tough nut to crack for me as well, but all of the sources I've seen related to the real-world Queen's House capitalize it. I don't think the Queen actually lives there anymore, but I might be wrong. It seems to be a proper name in either case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

2.✅ A big question I have about the plot is how does it conclude? I don't know the game myself, but can't there be a description of how the game proceeds/ends?
 * This is a good question, and I wish I could answer it. I've never played TG myself, and it's basically fallen off the face of the earth in terms of availability. It's not even very well-represented on YouTube with Let's Plays and whatnot. Based on what I can gather from a few questionably-reliable sources (especially this review), the game has multiple, significantly-different endings according to the player's choices. I wish I had a usable source that explained this part and what the endings actually are, but I haven't seen any great material on that front. As it stands, I'm not sure what to do beyond what I've scraped together. Reviewers generally acted like there wasn't much of a plot to TG beyond the setup, but ideally I'd still like some coverage of how the endings play out. I might be able to stretch reliability and use the Zarf review if all else fails, because Andrew Plotkin is something of a WP:EXPERTSOURCE. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm a page-lurker and I chouldn't help reading about this quandary. My advice would be to read various Walkthroughs whether from reliable sources or not (as the strength of a walkthrough is in being 100% accurate I'd put my money on them being 'reliable' even if not being reliable in the Wikipedia sense), getting a general consensus from those various walkthroughs, and then sourcing the game itself when using the information in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the biggest sticking point. According to WP:VG/S you can simply let the game itself be the source (but not the only one). But if you don't know the ending and you haven't found a playthrough/review that explains it, that makes things difficult. I agree with Coin945's idea. The description of the ending doesn't have to be complex; a one-sentence summary might suffice.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll poke around today and see what I can do. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the best, but I tried to hack something together based on the Plotkin review and a walkthrough that I found in the Wayback Machine. The walkthroughs currently online (and even the sole Let's Play on YouTube) don't appear to feature the game's ending, so I lucked out. Thanks for the idea, Coin! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job finding a source.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Development:

Origins:

1.✅ "... in excess of ...", could by simplified to just "more than".
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

2.✅ "... developed a game concept set ...", what is meant by game concept set?
 * In other words, a game concept that takes place in that location. I've revised this section to clarify it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

3.✅ "... while informing them about the real-world Tower." maybe use "teaching" rather than "informing".
 * I struggled with this sentence, because the developers specifically rejected the edutainment label, and "teaching" implies a didactic style that I don't think TG contains. "Informing" was the best way I could find to convey what Papworth said in this interview: "the idea was that you would gain a knowlege of the place with no pain... and have a real brain streaching journey too boot". So it's informative without being strictly educational, which seems to have been a common style for European adventure games of this era. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

4.✅ "... President Jan Phersson-Broburg argued that self-funding Daydream's future games with money from Swedish investors, instead of opting for publisher financing "linked to specific projects", would offer ...", I'd use a MOS:DASH here rather than commas.
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Production:

1. "less literal puzzles" What is a literal puzzle? The source has that Safecracker has more abstract puzzles, not literal.
 * I was trying to avoid close paraphrasing on the source—literal vs. abstract is a pretty common dichotomy, so "less literal" as a synonym for "abstract" made sense to me. I'm not sure what else I could use. "Less realistic" sounds POV, which is why I didn't opt for that before. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but I still find literal puzzle to sound odd. For example, googling literal puzzle doesn't really yield any useful results when compared to abstract puzzle. I'd just stick with the original phrasing.

2.✅ "the team modified sections of the Jewel House at the request of the Tower of London's management, who had security concerns after seeing Safecracker..." I didn't know what they meant by "security concerns" until I checked the source. I would make it clearer that the problem they had was that they were worried that the game's portrayal of the Tower was realistic enough that they feared people using the game to break into the real Tower.
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

3.✅ "Creation of Traitors Gate's models and textures was performed by five members of Daydream." could be changed to an active sentence: "five members were responsible for creating..."
 * Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

4.✅ "The soundtrack, purposely limited in-game to build atmosphere, was written in the style of "sixties and seventies" spy films to match the theme of Traitors Gate, according to Toontrack." I'd put "according to Toontrack" at the start of the sentence, not the end.
 * Restructured to clarify the sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Release:

5.✅" Further launches occurred in New Zealand and Australia on October 31, through Hilad Corporation; in France on November 29, through Éditions Profil; and in Spain on December 16, through FX Interactive." Semicolon doesn't work here because the latter sentences can't stand on its own.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. This is a very common (maybe the most common) use of semicolons. Even MOS:SEMICOLON provides an example of a sentence in exactly this format: "Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Singapore; and Millbank, London, England." Clauses attached via semicolon don't have to stand on their own as complete sentences. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken, looking reading that example a second time made it clear to me your sentence is acceptable.

6.✅ "... gets the crack it deserves at the American Market..." Market is also capitalized in the original source, but I'm not sure if it should stay that way in the quote.
 * I agree that it's pretty unsightly, but I'm not sure what's allowed when it comes to changing quotes for MOS purposes. I've seen some people suggest that typo correction is fine in the past, although that was years and years ago. Unless you're thinking that I should add an edit in brackets? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WP:QUOTE it's fine to keep it as is, as it doesn't affect the meaning, so nevermind this.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reception

Sales and distribution:

1.✅"it was a commercial failure in Germany, where it sold 4,000 copies; and in the United Kingdom, which bought 3,000 units. It also failed in Italy." I'd merge the last sentence about Italy with the previous sentence.
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The semicolons in the revised version don't fit (MOS:SEMICOLON). I'd write it as "However, in Germany it was a commercial failure, having only sold 4,000 copies; It also performed poorly in Italy and England, the latter only having bought 3,000 units."
 * As above, I'm not sure where you're seeing this on MOS:SEMICOLON. The sentence structure, which is a very common and widely-accepted use of semicolons, is identical to the one provided in the final example on that page: "Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Singapore; and Millbank, London, England." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It still seems a bit weird to me personally, but I think it's acceptable as per MOS:SEMICOLON.

Critical reviews:

1.✅ The third paragraph quoted negative reviews, then goes back to quoting positive reviews in the later paragraphs. I don't know of any written rules concerning this, but I usually see the more positive reviews at the start of the reception section and the more negative reviews at the bottom. Just pointing this out, don't think it needs changing per se.
 * Gotcha. I've seen that structure used for games with majorly positive reviews (and used it myself on certain articles), but I felt like this fit better for TG, especially because the reception was so mixed. Interspersing the positive and negative felt like the best way to avoid undue weight on either one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Critique summary:

All in all I think this article is very well written, I had trouble finding anything to mention (despite the length). My biggest points are the lack of the plot's conclusion and the somewhat confusing statements about the Crown being 'stolen' by Raven and the vague 'security concerns'. I've given a fail for the prose and coverage, but this can easily be solved with some minor adjustment. (or explaining why the plot should only talk about the beginning.)

I'll check out the citations later (didn't think it would take this long to review just the writing style).--Megaman en m (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I've made some changes to the article and responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources:

1.✅ "The player character is equipped with gear such as ... explosives and tools to hijack security cameras." The source doesn't make direct mention to any security cameras, all it says is the player has "video and audio monitoring devices".
 * I think something must have gotten shuffled around while I was writing. I've added the manual source (you can see it here) instead. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That fixed it.

2.✅ "hoped to make a game that entertained players while informing them about the real-world Tower.[9]" Where does it say this exactly?
 * It's a paraphrase of the conversation on page 4:
 * interactfictionADM: What kind of things do you want players to take away from Traitors Gate?
 * Peter: apart from the Jewels?
 * Nigel: the idea was that you would gain a knowlege of the place with no pain...
 * Nigel: and have a real brain streaching journey too boot
 * TheSire: cool
 * interactfictionADM: So Traitors Gate is part puzzle-based adventure, part trip to the Tower?
 * Peter: exactly
 * In other words, it's a game that combines entertainment ("puzzle-based adventure", jewel heist) with an informational aspect ("knowledge of the place with no pain", "real brain streaching journey"). The interviewer sums it up pretty neatly—"part puzzle-based adventure, part trip to the Tower". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't catch that.

3.✅ "Textures were created in MetaCreations Painter" The source just says "painter" and the article links it to "Corel Painter", it's a bit confusing.
 * In the version history, it gives a timeline of the product—Corel purchased Painter after TG was released, so they couldn't have been using Corel Painter. That said, looking at this again, it's possible that Daydream was using the earlier Fractal Design edition rather than MetaCreations Painter—so I can't just assume. Changed it to "Painter". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

4.✅ I can't check [31] https://notices.californiatimes.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ because it's not available in the EU. Not sure what to do about this. I guess just confirm that it mentions "Traitors Gate was built with ... software that displays virtual-reality photographic panoramas".
 * That's odd. Well, the source is specifically about Real VR (rather than TG), to explain what the software does. I needed this because, while Papworth said that TG was built with Real VR in the BonusWeb interview, he didn't describe the program's function that cleanly. This is the cited passage:
 * "Even photography-based virtual reality available on CD-ROM or the Internet--such as Apple's QuicktimeVR, Black Diamond's Surround Video software, and RealVR Traveler from Live Picture & RealSpace--only allow the user to view a panorama from a fixed point, not wander through it."
 * Basically, it's one of many QuickTime VR clones. Not too controversial. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Accepted the source.

5.✅ "It was the latter company's first published game.[44]" Doesn't the source simply say that the FX Interactive team thanks them for their support since the first day?
 * The news post I'm citing on that page (unfortunately, I don't think I can link directly to it) is this one, translated via Google Translate:
 * Today it is put on sale TRAITORS GATE, first product of FX
 * Madrid, December 16, 1999 Today, December 16, 1999, it is put on sale TRAITORS GATE, first product published by FX Interactive. TG has an i-Manual with an intelligent and interactive concept to present the use and help information of the products. Completely innovative Test it !!
 * It's lower down on the page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that there were two paragraphs about Traitors Gate, I only noticed the first one. My bad.

6.✅ "It was also a finalist for GameSpot's 2000 "Best Adventure Game" award, which ultimately went to The Longest Journey.[72]" Can't it link directly to https://web.archive.org/web/20011211110815/http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2000/p3_03.html ?
 * Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing is meticulous and consistent. No major problems.
 * Thank you! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Other notes: The powerplay review mentions that the player is overwhelmed by the gadgets because they're all available at the start; this is a criticism not mentioned anywhere, could maybe be worth adding.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

After fixing most of the minor quibbles, this article clearly deserves to be classified as GA, good job on passing!--Megaman en m (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the great review! And I'll adjust that "literal puzzle" thing in a second. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't see why this article would have much difficulty passing FA.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I've considered that option as well, but I haven't taken an article to FAC in about 5 years and I can't really justify the stress to myself anymore. For now, I'm content to spend my wiki-time producing solid GAs like this one. Maybe one day, though! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)