Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  07:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello, everyone -- my name is Mukk and I'll be your friendly neighborhood reviewer for this article. To make clear my impartiality (or lack thereof), let me first confess to actually having played this game before at some point in my life (and even brought my diskettes to college with me in the hopes that I could find someone with a 3½-inch floppy drive to play it on). That having been said, I will be reviewing against the criteria posted outlined in the good article criteria. Please feel free to leave comments and responses to my comments at any point during the review. (Please sign your comments.)

If at any point you disagree with my comments to such an extreme degree that you wish for a different opinion on the matter, please let me know and I'll request a second opinion over at the nomination page. I welcome any questions, comments, or concerns you might have about anything even vaguely related to this review. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
I am placing the GA Review on hold for now. I have finished my preliminary analysis of the article and have identified what are the most blantant points of contention (in my opinion.) I will let the article remain on hold for 1 week before coming back for a second look-over.

In the meantime, please feel free to leave comments or questions, especially if you don't understand a point I tried to make at any point. I'm putting this page on my watch list, but I'm also contactable through my talk page at any time. If you're having trouble finding information on something, I can try to help, but no guarantees. Finding sources for video games written before the super-popularization of the internet among the common populace is no small feat. (I have to warn you that I do not have a copy of the user manual with me, so I can't help you with sources related to that.)

Additionally, GroundZ3R0 was kind enough to leave a second opinion below (see last section) for additional consideration.

Cheers! -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail criteria
References
 * Ref# 12, 30 are the same: Warcraft 1 Manual: Humans (Mac), p. 3 ✅
 * Overall: ✅

Neutrality
 * Perhaps a bit more focused on Mac than PC, but that's not really the "neutrality" the criteria were considering.
 * Overall: ✅

Cleanup
 * dn in section Gameplay on Azeroth. ✅
 * Overall: tentative ✅

Edit wars
 * Excessive reverts: no.
 * Quibbling over minor details: no.
 * Overall: ✅

Current events
 * Overall: ✅

Overall
 * Pass, as long as the above mentioned get cleaned up. They're just minor details, and not worth failing the article on. ✅
 * Overall: ✅
 * PASS the Quick-Fail.

Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria
Items which can be considered "nit-picky" are prefaced with a bolded M (for minor). These items may be my opinion, an observation as to content flow (ex. starting ten sentences in a row with the same word or words), suggestions as to word-choice for headers, &tc. ''Ignoring these items will not fail the GA review. Really.''

Well-written

 * The first sentence of "Modes" needs citation. (Sentence is: "All the missions in Westwood Studios' Dune II followed the "build base, build army, destroy enemy" pattern." ). Add a mention of what this has to do with anything. Yes, the second sentence builds upon that idea, but the first sentence should be a topic sentence and an attention grabber. Maybe something like: "Warcraft incorporated the award-winning Dune II "build base, build army, destroy enemy" paradigm, and expanded it to include other forms of game play. These included..." -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The cite is the Geryk one at 1st part fo next sentence - but I used the wrong page of Geryk, I've corrected to ref "GerykHistoryOfRTSWHaO" --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I wanted to focus on gameplay, and put the history parts as much as possibly in "Legacy". I couldn't omit Dune II from "Modes", otherwise there would have been disputes. The "Gameplay" sections are at the front per WP:VIDEOGAMES, which mainly thinks about current games rather than historic ones (makes USA buildings look like Stonehenge!). However, I considered another structure, with "Legacy" at the front, only the grounds that WC: O&R would only be played by GA reviews, since WC II (1995, 13 months later) was at least twice the game. Then the "Gameplay" section could mention Dune II concisely and only as relevant. This would reduce duplication, e.g. about mission types. What you do thing?
 * I'd recommend removing all mentions of non-Warcraft gameplay from the gameplay section. Comparisons with other games should go elsewhere, because Gameplay is about Warcraft Gameplay -- not Warcraft Gameplay and how it compares to half a dozen other games.
 * The issue was originally not so much the inclusion' of information about Dune II, but rather in the way it was included. A paragraph should have a single purpose, and that single purpose should be defined early on. The purpose of the initial paragraph of "Modes" is to defined the different modes of game play, so the initial sentence should be about the modes of Warcraft ... not about Dune II gameplay. The example I gave above in the initial comment was an attempt to show how the Dune II information could be incorporated in such a way as to still make clear that the paragraph is about Warcraft modes, while still leaving in the comparison.
 * Does that make more sense? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning, if we retain then the current sequence of sections. How do you feel at moved "Legacy" to the top?
 * That makes little sense. It would be an article telling us the legacy of a product before explaining the product itself. Almost like an article about a battle that had the aftermath section come before the sequence of events. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll keep the unusual type of layout. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same issue with first sentence of section "Innovations". Also see items in section Organization below. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  10:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Section "Innovations" is part of "Legacy", which might move up. I've looked at "Innovations" and feel more comfortable about this than about "Modes" - in fact IMO "Innovations" is concise and clear: Dune II futurist, the fanasty / medieval setting of WC: O&H introduced melee units; Dune II have 1 mission types, WC: O&H had several. --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I had with this section is that I don't believe switching a genre is an innovation. Stuff like adding multiplayer, selecting multiple units, and other gameplay innovations, sure.
 * Additionally, Warcraft is not the first medieval RTS (see Legionnaire (video game)), nor is it the first fantasy/magic RTS (see J. R. R. Tolkien's War in Middle-earth). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In your "I don't believe switching a genre is an innovation", are you referring to multiplay in Doom? If so, WC: O&H is the first RTS with multiplayer, but (presumably) got the idea from Doom. Or I'm confused, please tell me what you comment was about. --Philcha (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Now I'm confused. I've made a section below about Legacy to clarify what I was trying to say before everything got all... jumbled. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fahs says, "Years had passed and Westwood still hadn't followed up on their game, nor had anyone else. Blizzard wanted to change that," which is an exaggeration - Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty has only 1 1990s review for Dune II, Jan 1993 - suggests Dunne II' was released late 1992, so WC: O&H'' released 2 years, though we don't know the conception and start of development.
 * Passive voice in this sentence in "Reception" makes it difficult to understand: "The sound effects were enjoyed, and the stereo sound helped gamers to locate events that occured outside the current viewport." The sound effects were enjoyed... by whom? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to avoid naming reviewers as far as possible, as I see this value to average readers (reviewers are typical, I are wun). How about "One reviewer ..."? --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even "gamers" would be good. It's just a single sentence in passive voice floating in the middle of an article in the active voice, is very awkward sounding. I'd actually argue for cutting out the whole bit about enjoyment since it is not WP:NPOV and there is no opposing view presented from folks who did not like the sound effects. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * went for "The good stereo sound helped gamers to locate events ..." (combiing clauses) --Philcha (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the reference for that sentence and there's no reference to the sound being "good". "Good" should probably be removed anyway, because even if it does get sourced, it's really just one reviewer's opinion, and ambiguous at that. What does "good" mean? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The MacGamer reviewer said, "In particular, the graphics of the citizens carrying gold and felling trees are excellent, as are the sound effects". --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that qualifies a blanket statement. One review does not the truth make. And it can't really be a truth -- it's a subjective statement and violates WP:NPOV. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Warcraft review for the MAC aslo liked the sound.
 * This sentence is strange: "Blizzard Entertainment was surprised that no company, including Westwood Studios, released a competitor to Dune II". Why would Westwood release a competitor to their own game? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Blizzard Entertainment was surprised that no other RTS appeared after Dune II in 1992 – – although in fact Westwood had quietly been ...". My only doubt is that no source I've seen stated when Blizzard was interested. Geryk says "After the release of Dune II, no new real-time strategy games were released for the better part of two years. As Blizzard's Bill Roper told Computer Games Magazine, "We couldn't believe that no one else, including Westwood, had ever done a game that had this real-time strategy element"", which suggests that at the time develop cycles were short (no multi-million art budgets), but that's just an impression. --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just the word "surprised" is really bothering me here -- it sounds very POV and unencyclopedic. Maybe somthing along the lines of this: "Blizzard began development of Warcraft in the lull following the release of Dune II by Westwood Studios." The fact that Westwood was quietly developing anything is really superfluous here, because Command & Conquer would become a competitor for Warcraft II, and only for a brief time be in direct competition with Warcraft I. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 13:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the source, I didn't make WP:PEACOCK up. Quit eof the sources in this article reach for the superlatives. --Philcha (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they're not the ones trying to write an encyclopedia article, eh? Just because the sources uses it doesn't mean the article does either. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to "suprised", Geryk quotes, "As Blizzard's Bill Roper told Computer Games Magazine, "We couldn't believe that no one else, including Westwood, had ever done a game that had this real-time strategy element." So Blizzard itself decided to do it."
 * BTW the Geryk quote suggests Blizzard didn't know about 1980s RTS. I should mention predecessors, but lightly. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I revamped "Economy and power" as I thought parts were repetitious, confusing and poorly ordered - hope you like the result. --Philcha (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization
Discussion of issues with sections, headers, and section organization to go here.


 * Contains a number of extremely short sections (ex. a single paragraph). See: Layout. This is very noticeable in the "Technology" section (1.2), as its four subsections are each only a few sentences long. Consider either expanding these sections or combining them -- units and spells (since spells seems to be about spell casters), for example. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * M - "Technology" is a perhaps inappropriate section name. (Units aren't technology, nor are resources.) Perhaps "Game elements" is a better alternative. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  07:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO "Game elements" is ambiguous - could be about e.g. "Modes" (e.g. multiplayer), mission types, UI, etc. I adopted "Technology" from Age of Empires (video game) (GA, Jan 2009). I'm happy if you suggested a title that summarises the rules rather than the software implementation - at Talk:Master_of_Orion_II:_Battle_at_Antares#GA_Review I discussed the distinction e.g. the difference between the rules of chess and the implementation of a chess program. --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, that. What about gameplay elements? The thing about technology is that it brings to mind an entirely different concept. Consider, for example, War2 -- blacksmiths and lumber yards let you upgrade technologies to improve your units and/or upgrade them (eg. archer → marksman). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went for "Economy and power", which I think is precise. E.g. the Lumber Mill increases wood production, enables producing of archers, an dupgrades archers. --Philcha (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right-o, good enough. Better than "Technology" at the very least. ✅ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing sections: Storyline. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrote a backstory. The campaigns of the 2 races are the difficulty - I've Google (incl archives) and there's no sign of a formally published game guide; I don't if know Prima Games even wrote a WC: O&H guide, and where one could it get for free. There are various of WP:SPS - if I used one of these, it would be of those from the big-name web-site rather than one of the wikis. --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon seems to think there exist guides, but nobody I know owns any of them. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. ✅


 * Sections "Sequels" and "Blizzard style of RTS games" should be combined into a single section.
 * I disagree. One reason is that Starcraft is part of "Blizzard style of RTS games" but not a WC sequel - it's set on various planets and orbitals, but otherwise was a Warcraft game: same UI; same mixed of melee and ranged units; similar rich of story, characterisation and humour (e.g. the Protoss, try the insane Arbiter unit of repeatedly clicked; and one scream by the Zerg Mutalisk sounds like "make up your mind"). Another is WoW, in the WC universe and with the same style, but a MMORG and IMO therefore not a direct sequel. --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's still Warcraft. Warcraft (series), that is. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked Warcraft (series). This mentions WoW but not Starcraft. OTOH Starcraft is a RTS with gameplay mechanisms and concept for WC II, while WoW is a MMORG in the WC universe. IMO Starcraft is more of a sequel, as e.g. Alpha Centauri


 * No mention of non-Blizzard products should be in this section, because non-Blizzard products are not Warcraft sequels.
 * In most cases I'd agreed, but Command & Conquer (1995) and Red Alert (1996) bracketed WC II, which squeezed WC II financially and in reviews, where Westwood was then regarded as the leader, WC II as 2nd and the rest nowhere, reviews of WC II include comparisons with C&C and sales / financial aspects would include comparisons with both Westwood games. It would like reviewing one of Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman without major comment without the other 2. The 1990s were a special time for RTSs, as the early 1970s were for heavyweight boxers. --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it should be mentioned in the WCII article, not here. WCII should be mentioned because it's a sequel. WCIII, WoW because they're also sequels, in a way. W:O&H wasn't in competition with C&C. "Sequels" should talk about just that: sequels. (And the warcraft phenomenon mentioned in the next bullet.) "Legacy" should mention later RTS games that build upon concepts introduced in W:O&H. Eg. multiplayer and so forth. Competition can be mentioned there if need be. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually I expect a "Sequels" section to include commentary, e.g. was a sequel good and it sell. But in these case the C&C games affect the reviews and the sales of the sequel. --Philcha (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What gets presented in Sequels shouldn't go beyond what's presented in the lead of the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness article. (Which makes no mention of C&C.) Because, frankly, it's the purpose of the War2 article to mention that. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness article says nothing about the Blizzard / Westwood rivalry because Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness is a start article - that will be changed >-)
 * Braggadacio aside, the buzz caused by the rivalry was good for both games (I can remember I), and soon it was raining RTS, one of which was a upstart called [Total Annihilation]] - as, as a side-effect, 4X games were eclipsed, and only partly recovered after the port of Galactic Civilizations'' to Windows. --Philcha (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentions of the Warcraft phenomenon should be made here (expansion of Warcraft concept and franchise beyond video gaming into other areas.) War3 needs a mention here as well. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of the WC film and other possible tied ins, and decided they should be Warcraft (series): good articles on the games would have enough content without the other stuff, especially for WC III and WoW (should have sources more than one would read); the film may not be connected especially to any one of the "Warcraft" games (could be a composite of the storylines). --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but somewhere should be mentioned that W:O&H spawned a series that not only encompassed the sequel video games but also other non-video-game media (comic books, &tc.) Just a mention; specifics can be discussed in the Warcraft (series) article, but the fact that they exist needs to be mentioned. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * spawned --Philcha (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Popularization of the RTS genre should be moved into an introductory paragraph for the Legacy section. (I'm referring to the information currently in the Sequels section about competition between Westwood and Blizzard.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I look at indiv sections, I think like the current sections. But the larger picture is persuading me more and more that "Legacy" should be at the top - as I said, the importance of WC: O&H is historical. But I suspect I'd could not get away with that with a WP:VIDEOGAMES reviewer. If we go for "Legacy", I adjust sequence, relative importance, etc. Might take 2 days, and I'd do a draft in my sandbox and then post a link there - probably as a big red box at the top of the GA review, in case others comment. -Philcha (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My point here was that the section has three sub-sections, but no introduction. See what I'm trying to say? Gameplay, for example, has an introductory paragraph and then goes on to talk about other things. Legacy does none of that. Maybe just delete the "Innovations" header (just the header, not the content) and let that information act as an introduction, that'd be cool. Right now the article is suffering from chronic over-division. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Was Warcraft the first medieval/fantasy RTS or the first really popular one? Either way, it needs to be in the same introductory section that I mentioned in the previous bullet. Innovations should include less about game concepts as opposed to game play concepts -- user interface, minimaps, multiplayer, multiple unit selection, and so forth. (As opposed to swords-versus-guns, magic-spells-not-magic-bullets.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have paras about medieval/fantasy vs current/futuristic, about mission types and about "Mode". Again, a redraft "Legacy" at the top might absorb a lot of this. --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just today I found about Realms (video game) (1991, the box art looks like medieval/fantasy) - all your fault, as you found Find more about Realms  will be fun, not. :-/ --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, it's all my fault. I know. :) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This chunk of text was in Reception and, except for a mention that some reviewers believed the Orcs had stronger forces, is more about game play and the interface than about the reception of the game:
 * The early stage of a game can be slow, as the player must produce a few basic buildings and peasants in order to gather resources, and then start building combat units.[11] Meanwhile the AI does not to spend so much effort on gathering resources and often starts with more buildings, which forces the gamer to spends more of each contest on the defensive.[11]
 * While the basic units of the two sides were also identical, there were suggestions that the balance of the more advanced forces favored the Orcs, especially the Orc Daemon.[11]
 * The user interface had an unsophisticated appearance, but worked in most respects.[11] However the selecting of no more than four units at a time was restrictive.[11] There was no queuing of construction or research.[11] Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (reformat --Philcha (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
 * These are comments by reviewers, mainly negatives. --Philcha (talk 07:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re early stage of a game can be slow, the main comparison available to reviewers at the time would be Dune II. What makes the early game slow in WC and derivatives is the need for farms / houses / analogues to support units, because building these takes times and resources. The other RTS I know have no analogue, and build the first combat units earlier. --Philcha (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "the AI does not to spend so much effort on gathering resources and often starts with more buildings" is IMO a concise pointer to several issues in RTSs. First, most strategy games' AIs get some advantage in resource collecting, otherwise the gamers would find it too easy - AIs for strategy computer games, and especially RTS, are difficult to design and development, chess AI is easy by comparison (saw a ref 2-3 years ago, and I know a bit about chess). In addition the campaign missions in RTS games all give the gamer next to no initial economy, while the AI usually has a few buildings - again, to make it challenging for gamers - and of course that keeps the gamer on the defensive for 50% to 75% of the game. The initial economy factor does not apply to skirmishes (against AIs) or multiplayer (against gamers), but the reviewer had no experience of that because WC: O&H introduced skirmishes and multiplayer - OTOH by about 1997 (e.g. TA) reviewers were writing more about multiplayer than about campaign missions. --Philcha (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "suggestions that the balance of the more advanced forces favored the Orcs" is another early sign of a persistent issue in RTS games. Sources here say Dune II had factions with identical stats but with different "playing styles". Commentators on all of the WC series say the Orcs have the advantage (in WC: O&H and WC II, it's a couple of stronger spells). In TA, everyone says the Arm has the advantage (this is WP:SPS but the best analysis; can probably get official WP:RS if I needed). In the Red Alert universe the Soviets have a major advantage, because it's basic tanks are stronger. Balance is a huge issue in RTS, and a reader with above elementary knowledge of RTS would be looking for it. --Philcha (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable
(waiting for content to stabilize)

Broad in its coverage

 * Missing information on development -- where did the initial ideas come from, how much was drawn from Dune II, &tc. Development section only seems to focus on storyline development (and the fact there really wasn't any) rather than gameplay concept development
 * Short of sources, even after Google archive. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I guess I'll put this down to "lack of online sources." -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there any sort of "beta testing" like there was for Warcraft III? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Short of sources, even after Google archive. IMO little beta testing, as a couple of sources mention bugs, the graphics code was slow and nealry froze in battles (I mention Blizzard were still learning). My impression (OR alert!) was that Blizzard leaned a lot of lessons and this made then the notorious perfectionists they appeared from WC II onwards. I thin I could find sources for "perfectionists", but have no prospects for "beta testing" in WC: O&H,. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For that matter, there is no mention of Warcraft III in the sections "Sequels" or "Blizzard style of RTS games". WoW is mentioned, but not WIII. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a source that links WC III' to WC: O&H, will use after we resolved place and scope of "Legacy". -Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some (brief) mention should be made of other Warcraft phenomenon -- eg. books, comics, &tc. I don't know if any of the books or comics were actually set in the Orcs & Humans timeline as opposed to the Tides of Darkness/Beyond the Dark Portal/Reign of Chaos/Frozen Throne/WoW/anything-else-I-might-have-forgotten timelines, but the fact that the universe has expanded to include things other than computer games is worth at least a sentence. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to me research this to - you're slavedriver :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically you don't even need to research it. I think I've beaten this point to death -- somewhere it should be mentioned that W:O&H was the first of a series of video games that spawned an entire line of non-video game content including novels, comic books, and an (upcoming) film. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V, alas. --Philcha (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Borrow a source from Warcraft (Series). Anything that mentions something along the lines of "a series of games developed by Blizzard including Warcraft: Orcs & Humans..." or something like that. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Warcraft (series) lacks ref on "other Warcraft phenomena" - added some. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added some - had to find, Warcraft (Series) lacks refs on --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * M - The introduction of the "Gameplay" section, which summarizes gameplay is excellent. My only issue is the sentence: "In addition both sides have to ward off dangers from wild monsters, but sometimes can use some monsters as troops." This is never expanded upon in the rest of the article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Human Conjurer and Orc Warlock have energy blasts, wider-range destruction spells and ability to summon small, venomous monsters" in "Spells". --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence I originally quoted doesn't make the distinction between regular wild monsters and summoned ones. So I confess it's been about 10 years since I played this last. Does W:O&H have critters? Either way critters ≠ daemons. The sentence had me envisioning players commanding hordes of sheep.... (Do the critters attack in W:O&H, or does "wild monsters" only refer to summoned creatures? Frankly, I'm confused.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK "critters" in the WC II and Starcraft (not dangerous, can be inconvenient, AIs kill them if there's more else to do). WC: O&H has dangerous monsters; 2 of these have same speed, hit points and damage, and Hunans can summon one while Orcs can summon the other, in addition to the wild instances. --Philcha (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I suppose it's a case of me getting my Warcraft incarnations confused. ✅ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A mention is made to the fact that the storyline is ad hoc and was made up on the spot at the studio, but there is no explanation as to the storyline itself. A "Synopsis" or "Storyline" section would not be remiss here. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See above - the manual have backstory, but only WP:SPS describe events from the starts of the campaigns. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But you added a "storyline" section so we're cool. ✅ (Though I'm not sure why you have both a Storyline and a Backstory section?) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there anything different in the re-release? Sometimes the re-releases include cut-scenes or bonus materials (concept art, &tc.). Was any of that included in this case? (I honestly have no idea.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check (sigh). --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only what we have, mentions demos but not details. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some mention of music, sound effects, and so forth. Who composed them, what studio produced them. It's probably in the user manual, or in the credits. Some mention is made of it being in stereo, that's a good start. Does Warcraft, like the other Blizzard games, do the thing where if you click on a unit multiple times it'll start saying funny things? That's worth a mention. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to might less writing and more reading (mock-acerbic). I can probably dial in the credits, but IMO those would not be interesting - it was limited by MIDI and sounds at the time, not .wav, never mind mpeg. If I got excited about music, it would be Laura Barrat's for Master of Orion II - this is the least exciting of the 3 combat themes, the best is frantic; and the main theme is a 3-minute loop like "Old Man River" in space and with dark undertones. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mention that (midi thing). The point of this section of the review is broad coverage, not in-depth. We don't need music scores, just mention of it. How many bg tracks were there? And so forth. More indepth can go into later development, but something needs to be mentioned as basic. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only sources we've found between us are: reviews, which don't list tracks or artists; the manual, which does not list tracks but lists artists - the lead is Glenn Stafford (so sources in that WP article), who is a long-time Blizzard member, see e.g. Original Sound Version  &raquo; Glenn Stafford. This fairly serious forum did not succeed in getting tracks. I'd omit music artists unless they are independently notable - otherwise we end up including all the credits on the manual, and even for WC: O&H that would be a screenful. --Philcha (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got lucky on music - the contract composer Gregory Alper wrote music that Blizzard staff found reminiscent of Holst's The Planets. Nothing on sound, but this YouTube sounds very MIDI - as normally for the time. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
''Note: these issues mainly reflect the fact that the lead section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Generally speaking, items will be listed here because they are only mentioned in the lead, and never expanded upon in the article itself.''


 * Lead mentions moderate sales, never expanded upon in article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, there is. --Philcha (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still can't find it. "Sales" is used once in the whole article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In section "Blizzard style of RTS games", sentence "While Warcraft: Orcs & Humans was a modest success, ..." --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a "modest success"? That could refer to any number of things -- popularity, sales, its ability to win awards. Modest success ≠ moderate sales. (Not necessarily; it could be.) Moderate sales needs numbers to back it up; modest success needs something explaining the parameters of what "modest" and "success" are refering to. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * rewritten --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead mentions awards, never expanded upon in article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a lie. (you're now about to learn UK idiom) --Philcha (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops totally missed that. ✅ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Information about the sequel becoming a lead contender for a as-yet-unwritten game (at the time that this game came out) should not be in the lead. Maybe it could be replaced later with a small bit about how this is the first game that in a series that launched a whole phenomenon including books, comics, and so forth and made Blizzard a strong and viable contender in the RTS gaming world. Or something like that -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? --Philcha (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary of previous points: Lead section should include a summary of major points in the article that are about this game only. No mention should be made to sequels (War2) or competitors of sequels (Command & Conquer). Some mention of the fact that it was the first game of a series that sparked a phenomenon (see previous point) should be made as well. New information (ex. that is not mentioned or expanded upon in the article itself) should not be mentioned here. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? --Philcha (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
I'm going to consider Mac vs MS-DOS/PC to be the "neutrality" issue here rather than "this game sucks/is totally awesome", because, frankly, we've got no issues with the latter but a few with the former and this will keep the other sections from getting bogged down.


 * No mention is made of differences between the MS-DOS version and the Mac version, though they do exist. Nor is it mentioned that software was bundled into the Mac version to allow for cross-OS play (an unheard of concept at the time.) Consider the information in the article (which is already used as a reference). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the Mac version had upgraded graphics, but not to "normal" Mac standard. The Macgamer article says DOS & Mac could play against each other, but does not show that the Mac has special software for that. Possibly have the same comms protocols and file sets would be enough. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a mention of MS-DOS/PC sales versus Mac sales. (Aside: If I recall correctly, Mac had a weaker reception because it took two years for the game to be released on Mac, and the graphics, while upgraded, were still not up to par.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? The only sales info I found was the EW CD stats for 3 Nov 1994. The Mac struggled from 1984 onwards: the GUI took a lot of the CPU and RAM, making it expensive per unit of work, e.g. calculating cells in a spreadsheet; Mac make a strategy error in not allowing 3-third cards; by 1990 the Mac had 2 niches, DTP and games (in the latter it was technically a long way ahead, but the hardware price was an obstacle). In games, the PC had greater sales and the most common order was to develop for DOS and port for Mac - e.g. Master of Orion (1993 DOS, 1995 Mac at Moby) far outsold Spaceward Ho!  (Mac only, 1991) --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Stable

 * Changes to this article consist of constructive content adding, and minor fixes in grammar, disambiguation, and so forth. No ongoing edit wars, content controversies, or other disruptive editing observed. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PASSED ✅

Illustrated

 * All images tagged with proper usage tags, &tc. I'm a bit iffy on the box art -- is that really a first-edition cover? Because my first-edition copy came with floppies and doesn't have the little cd-rom images on the bottom left corner. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You son of a Orc! This Google images shows no-CD art and music clips. Re the pic, I don't know whether the CD was released at the same time, will see if sources are clear. If not clear that floppies first, we have not justification for addition or replacing with another non-free pic. I'll add the clips as External Links. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't remove the picture, just change the caption. Right now it seems to be implying that it's the definitive first-edition cover; a more neutral, simple "Box art for Warcraft: Orcs & Humans" will do. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. ✅ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PASSED ✅

Comments about the article

 * Overall I felt that this was a very good introduction to the game Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. Like I mentioned above, I found the introduction to the "Gameplay" section, where it explained the concept of RTS and summarized Warcraft in a total of three sentences excellent. (I repeat this because it really is excellent. I tried explaining Warcraft to my grandmother once; I gave up after two hours. Next time I'll just send her here.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ROLF!. She might also like "A good RTS will usually be a mix of rock-paper-scissors, economics, multitasking and micromanagement. You will need to not only know that, for instance, pikemen defeat cavalry while cavalry beat archers, but have the cash and foresight to have built them up in advance" (courtesy of Goggle archives, thanks!!!) -Philcha (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû, thanks for starting the review very quickly. --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Overuse of references -- I'm a little concerned about a possible over-use of references in the case of the 1999 MobyGames review (13 uses), Geryk's GameSpot review (14 uses), Just Games Retro review (15 uses), and Wrobel's review (13 uses). Frankly anything that goes beyond 5 references, especially in an article this short, concerns me. Are there other references that can be used for some of these, just to spread the love around a bit? Maybe some that focus on the pc/ms-dos version? (wink wink) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nodding through Goggle Google archives --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

 * OK I'm going to make my point here since we seem to be going in circles above in "Broad in coverage".
 * This is how I figured the Legacy section should be structured:
 * 1. Legacy
 * Includes information on how RTS gaming changed because of W:O&H. Mentioned previously in the article was the fact that multiplayer, which was introduced with W:O&H, became standard fare for RTS games.
 * Discussion of other studios' RTS games released immediately after W:O&H that incorporated W:O&H gameplay and game concepts should go here. Eg. Command & Conquer.
 * Discussion of other Blizzard projects that developed as a result of W:O&H. Eg. Starcraft took some W:O&H concepts and ran with them.
 * A. Sequels
 * Release of WII, brief summary of what it took from W:O&H, what it changed, mention of the fact that it continued the original W:O&H storyline.
 * Includes information about what I've been calling "the Warcraft phenomenon." Just mention the fact that W:O&H was the start of the Warcraft (series) that spawned two more sequels, plus two expansion packs, in addition to a MMORPG, novels, comic books, and upcoming film. No need to give summaries, go in-depth, &tc. Just mention it exists.


 * In short:
 * "Legacy" refers to what W:O&H left to gaming. Gameplay concepts, tradition of rich storylines in Blizzard games, and so forth. Games subsequently released that build on these concepts (ex. Command & Conquer) to be discussed here. C&C's competition with War2 can be mentioned too. Starcraft & other Blizzard developments as well.
 * "Sequels" is just that -- sequels. Other stuff in the Warcraft universe.
 * The reasoning is that this format separates the Warcraft from the rest of it, because the development of the Warcraft universe and series is an entirely separate issue from the development of other RTS projects (Blizzard-based or otherwise). If there is enough information (ex. more than a paragraph), other Blizzard developments/projects could go in its own subsection, but really Starcraft only merits a brief mention, IMO.
 * I hope that makes a little more sense. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree this is where we need to resolve the complex issues, and we seem to agree on most of the specifics.
 * I think we also agree about the WC: O&H->WC II->WC III progression. However we have disagreements about the alignment of Starcraft and WoW - you split them by universe, I split them by gameplay. AFAIK the sources also split, except that some will play some issues will both ways, e.g. WoW is in a different genre but uses the same universe and Blizzard style.
 * Sources also support the developing house style from WC: O&H onwards, which applies to all the Blizzard products, and I'd expect also apply to third-party franchised products, as Blizzard are ferociously protective (probably easy to cite if needed, they're quite litigious). The house style is as significant as other factors, especially in Blizzard's instant and huge success with WoW, a genre in which they have previous track record except either the experience with Battlenet.
 * To avoid disputes on WP, I'd restrict "Sequels" to the WC: O&H->WC II->WC III progression, and put the rest in other parts of "Legacy".--Philcha (talk)


 * Cool. Agree. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have to rethink the "Innovations" as the sources there, esp. Geryk, seem to have missed things.:
 * Modem Wars, released in 1988 for DOS and the Commodore 64, was the first RTS with multiplayer play by means of modems - Unsung Heroes: Ground Breaking Games - Modem Wars
 * Realms (1991) was an RTS with medieval theme and melee units - seeAmiga - Realms - the games was also published for DOS in 1991. --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality (resp)
Re "Perhaps a bit more focused on Mac than PC", I suspect it's timimg - WC: O&H for DOS was released Nov 1994, DOS reviews were early 1995; the Mac version was late 1996 (see one of the Mac reviewers' gripes). That was the period when companies caught on to the Web, so the Mac reviews were online and the DOS reviews were not. It's hard to find web reviews before 1996, and I do not know of or have access to hardcopy reviews - and there's a fair chance that most of the hardcopy mags have gone under, been merged, etc. One of the things I tried to impress generally is that times very different 15 years ago. --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered searching news archives for game reviews? I generally use the Google news archives. A quick search just now brought up the following reviews:


 * Entertainment Weekly review, March 1996: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,291765,00.html
 * A lot of the others were pay-per-view or register-for-free-and-see, but there are some free ones. My search can be found here.
 * Just get in the mind of a pre-internet gamer. ;) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, that's a type of resource I've not seen before - thanks! It may help a lot with at least 2 other games, and might also improve Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares (already GA, earlier this year). I'll start researching. It might take up to a week to search and incorporate the material, so I'll post when I'm done. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. I got turned onto that when I was updating some jetliner crash article (my usual fare on Wikipedia, believe it or not), and it's really been a life saver. Though I have to be honest, it's generally more useful for older articles (pre 1980) and for newspapers who can't afford their own archive or no longer exist. And it's the best source of free 19th century American newspapers that I've found to date -- not that it helps very much in this case. ^_^ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Google news archives for "Warcraft" was mostly about WoW, some about WC III, the rest were in more specific searches. "Warcraft: Orcs & Humans" (with quotes) little, mostly history. "Warcraft 1994 1995" (w/o quotes) mostly history and business - will use some. is mostly simple intro to RTS (incl a successor Realms (video game), I make use this point) but must virtually about WC: O&H gameplay that's already covered better all ready. No other new sources on comments about gameplay. One sad item Parents sue online game seller for addicted son's suicide (China, 2003) blames WC : O&H (among other games), but IMO that's more about game addiction.
 * I'll go back to Warcraft: Orcs & Humans and see what is worth using, then post you when done. I will also check gameplay points from of the sources, as the very little time I've spending playing the game left me uneasy about a few points of gameplay (some might be confusions with WC II) - game journalists are usually good about reception, commercial success and history (mostly), but often make errors about gameplay and tech aspects. --Philcha (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go back to Warcraft: Orcs & Humans and see what is worth using, then post you when done. I will also check gameplay points from of the sources, as the very little time I've spending playing the game left me uneasy about a few points of gameplay (some might be confusions with WC II) - game journalists are usually good about reception, commercial success and history (mostly), but often make errors about gameplay and tech aspects. --Philcha (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the early (1994-5) articles that mention "World of Warcraft" aren't talking about the MMORPG we have today, but rather Orcs & Humans. (Today's WoW wasn't even conceivable back then.) So don't just pooh-pooh an article that says "World of Warcraft" if it's older than, say 1996. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I take that back. It seems like the archived articles have modern ads on them. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS would be a very good idea --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay
Hi, Mukku, I regret that I disagree with your restructure of "Gameplay":
 * I think "Storyline", "User interface" and "Economy and power" are in the wrong order. "Economy and power" is the core concepts, IMO should be first of these three (but after "Mode"); UI is how gamers control the economy, military and magical resources; and a lot of gamers never read "Storyline" or just skim through once to seen if there are any hints on How To Win, which is The Most Important Thing (guess where my sympathies are). --Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm itching to copyedit the 1st para of "Economy and power", because your style is very different from myself - and IMO mine is more like that of the journalists who write reviews. --Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I copyedited the last sentence of the 1st para of "Economy and power" to "... and to retain forests as defensive walls in the early game when combat forces are small" as it's more accurate - you'll exhaust the wood around the original base soon enough, the trick is to keep the defensive advantage as long as possible. --Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So we agree that Modes comes first, that's good. :) Most of my edits were to try and avoid gamecruft. The "... in the early game when combat forces are small" is edging towards too specific. It's enough, I think, to mention that forests can be used as defensive perimeters, and to note that there is some strategy involved in balancing harvesting with preservation of fortifications. The specifics of when/why/how is too specific. My problem with the first paragraph of Economy and Power is in the sentence "Resources include wood and gold, collected from non-combatant builders who deliver the resources to the town center.[4]" I think it's too specific -- the bit about builders and town centers.-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the defensive importance of forests: they are distinctive to the WC series and some derivatives (AoE, Earth Empire), but not in Starcraft (! an offshoot of WC; the analogue in SC is mineral deposits), the C&C lineage (vehicles venture to out-of-town deposits) or the Total Annihilation series (build collector buildings on out-of-town deposits). Forests as defences are an early phase of the games that have them; and a reviewer noticed (presumably by comparison with Dune II). --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that the first 2 paras of current version of "Economy_and_power" duplicate content about Town Hall, and use different terms for it. I suggest:
 * Warcraft requires players to collect resources, and to produce buildings and units in order to defeat an opponent in combat. Non-combatant builders deliver the resources to the town center Town Hall from mines, from which where gold is dug, and forests, where wood is chopped. As both are limited resources which become exhausted during the game, gamers must collect them efficiently, and must also retain forests as defensive walls in the early game when combat forces are small.
 * This and other l All lower-level buildings for Humans and Orcs have the same functions, but different graphics. The Town Hall stores resources and produces units that collect resources and construct buildings. Each Farm provides food for up to four units, and additional units cannot be produced until enough Farms are built. The Barracks produces all non-magical combat units, including melee, ranged, mounted, and siege units. However all except the most basic also need assistance from other buildings, some of which can also upgrade units.
 * How does that look to you? --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest pause in review
You put me on a research route that gave me a lot to think about on the "legacy" and commercial aspects, and WC III and (briefly) third-party franchise products. I've also noticed that the sources have some comments that may be inaccurate (magazine reviewers make mistakes), and I need to check (in some cases, by playing). In addition I'd could use a bit of time to look how to incorparate some of your comments. So I suggest we have not more comments for a week. When done, I'll produce a section of the review reporting what I've done, with summaries and/diffs, then notice that I'm ready to proceed. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm about to leave for a short holiday but will be back on the weekend, so I was going to suggest a break anyway. Good luck. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have a good holiday! --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Opinion
Hey there, it is my understanding that I may contribute as a secondary reviewer for some additional input. So, I thought I'd start here. While this is a good article, I can say there is definitely to many short Subcategories, which is a bulk of the article. This detracts from the article structure and many are so short and related that they can easily be grouped together. Next, there are many unsourced statements and opinions scattered everywhere in the article.

'Although sales were only moderate, reviewers were mostly impressed, and the game won some awards and was finalists for others. The sequel, Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, became the main rival to Westwood Studios' Command & Conquer series, and this competition fostered a RTS boom in the mid to late 1990s.'

That entire part of the first part of the paragraph is in the intro, which does not invite opinion unless summarizing reception or legacy, which it is not. Furthermore, the entire statement is unsourced and is therefore considered Original research, which is discouraged. Furthermore, the way it is written sways the readers opinions of the subject matter, provoking issues of NPOV and Bias, both of which are major article issues. This is only an example paragraph, but there are plenty of other sections in this article with the same and more issues. In fact, nearly the entire three intro paragraphs have these problems.

Next, both images on the article are non-free images, which is not an issue but both have very poor free-use rationales, which is a definite prevention of the article earning GA-status. Next, the development section is thin and should be re-written to state opinions where they are. More info on the stages of development and promotional steps for the game should be included. Next, the gameplay section (which I discussed briefly above) needs to be re-written to have few-to-no subsections and is written neutrally; it currently reads like an informational advertisement or promo website.

The reception section is the best section of the article by far. However, it could be grouped in to fewer, topical paragraphs. Also, it should be stated which reviewers stated what instead of faux-factual statements like: The user interface had an unsophisticated appearance, but worked in most respects or broad statements like: Some reviewers thought the game's AI was unintelligent and predictable. These, and similar sections, should be specific and concise on which reviewers felt what ways about the game. Also, try to include varying opinions for the reviews to keep NPOV.

Finally, the entire legacy section reads like an advertisement and some parts are entirely unrelated to the game, or at the connections to the game are not explained, at the least. I would keep these sections but fill them out to explain their relation to this game and make sure the prose is written well and neutrally. On a side note, I have not checked the references, but be sure to source every claim and piece of information and use reliable sources.

For extra information sections, add a plot, soundtrack, possible character/faction sections. These are just suggestions, but they could help readers to understand the whole of the game better. Last note, I would be sure to make sure the intro paragraphs summarize the entire article below in a well and indetailed form.

I'm sorry if I am bashing on this article, I just want to point out weaknesses to make a better final product. I wasn't intending to write a full review to begin with. As I am a secondary reviewer in this article, I do not have the authority to pass or fail this GA attempt; However, I am giving my opinion to the reviewer to FAIL this article and not just put it on hold due to the numerous and dire problems with this article. I apologize, but keep going and try again later. Happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, the conversation GroundZ3R0 mentions is here: User talk:Mukkakukaku. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GroundZ3R0 002, it would easy for all of us if you could structure your comments to we can all discuss, and keep track of who said what. For example a sub-section for each main text section of the article, then one of the lead (as an editor and reviewer I leave the lead to the end, as it should be based on the main text), then other things like image copyright (see User:Philcha/Sandbox, which I use as an outline when reviewing; for a full review using this structure, see e.g. Talk:Milo of Croton/GA1). In each sub-section, I suggest item is a bullet, each signed by you, and responses also signed by whomever. If you need help with this, I can draft a structured list, then you can see it xcovers the cover, then we can do to up. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take keep that in mind next time I begin a review. I wasn't intending on writing a full review when I started that though. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't try to structure your comments, it's quite likely that Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  and I make ignore some, cherry-pick a few but from our perspectives, etc. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know you can just call me Mukk instead of making the effort to copy-paste my signature everywhere. Trust me, I don't mind. :)
 * I think I got most of GroundZ3R0's points incorporated into my notes above, except the parts I didn't agree with. (Personally I think the article isn't biased and has a pretty-neutral POV if you ignore the mac-pc thing). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments
One minor addition - although no mention has been made yet, images need alt text per WP:ALT before it passes GAN. --Teancum (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about this? AFAIK WP:ALT is not one of the MOS elements required for WP:WIAGA - see criterion 1(b). --Philcha (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it an "official ruling" or anything like that, but given that alt text is very easy to do most reviews I've seen request it be done. I wouldn't say it's a reall pass/fail, but rather something that adds "extra credit" if you will.  I guess more what I was saying is that it's a should rather than a must before passing since it takes five minutes to do.  --Teancum (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify why alt text is required by most reviewers -- another user summed it up like this: "The good article criteria do not mention this specifically, but criterion 6b says "Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." The page on captions says that all images should have alt text."  That's why it's become a standard (at least with video game GANs) to have alt text.  Just thought I'd clarify. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a few other small things. Again, I don't know whether they're GA-breakers, I'll let the reviewer decide that, but I thought I might let page editors know. There are three disambig links that should be touched up. All other automated checks look good. --Teancum (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up - I usually check the bots after we're happy with the text. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)