Template:Did you know nominations/Cannon Fodder 2

Cannon Fodder 2

 * ... that to accompany Cannon Fodder 2, its designer partially wrote a novella only to have it vetoed, leaving reviewers baffled by the game's lack of plot?
 * Reviewed: Pink Turns to Blue

Created/expanded by Bridies (talk). Self nom at 17:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol confirmed.svg  New enough and long enough at time of nomination.  Article is neutral enough.  QPQ done.   Image in article has fair use rationale.
 * Symbol question.svg The plot summary does not require sources but things like "commonly known as Cannon Fodder 2 is an action-strategy shoot 'em up game developed by Sensible Software and published by Virgin Interactive for the Amiga and DOS in December 1994." really do need sources if I understand that policy correctly as it isn't a summary of game play.  The year also isn't cited anywhere in the article. I'm also having a hard time finding the hooked fact in article.  Can article be quoted to show where it supports the hook for me?--LauraHale (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments & fixes
 * Developer and publisher can be found in any of the secondary sources, but I've cited them in the infobox anyway; cited year, genres and PC port in the infobox; Amiga release is pretty obvious but feel free to add a cite to any of the sources titled Amiga Format, Amiga Power, Amiga Action, Amiga Computing, etc. The use of "commonly" I guess is synthesis based on the fact that only one secondary source uses the full title (which is why I cited that) and all others use the short title; changed "commonly" to "also".
 * The second paragraph of the development section (all sourced to the cite at the end of the paragraph), says: "Campbell began work on an elaborate "plot-to-be", partially completing a novella which was intended to accompany the final product [...] However, Virgin vetoed the proposal as too expensive and took charge of the manual's production. The result was a simplified explanation which described the soldiers as in the employ of the aliens and did not clarify the time-travel element."
 * Regarding the second part of the hook, I'd sourced the lack of plot to a review and made some reference to a reviewer's complaints of thematic incoherence. However reading over it you're right that the reviewers "bafflement" doesn't come across. So I've added this to the start of the reception section: "Reviewers complained about the lack of plot, with Amiga Power stating: "There's little explanation as to why you're doing this [time-travelling] and absolutely none in the game. As a result, the game doesn't hang together." [cite] AUI called the plot "pointless",[cite] while Amiga Computing called it a "slight problem", saying "you have to guess what is going on in the game because there's no plot explanation [...] it's all very confusing!"[cite]
 * First part of the hook is cited to a primary source, but he reiterated the claim in less detail in an interview published in a secondary source. The latter part of the hook is of course cited to multiple secondary sources. bridies (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Given the citation caveats Laura expressed above, I think the summary icon has been omitted, and this should not have a final tick like it appears to have. If I'm wrong, Laura, please feel free to override my question mark. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not approved. I put my tick marks for various things in the wrong order. :(  Looking at edits made to it, still not ready because of sourcing concerns regarding lead material. --LauraHale (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is there, that is not sourced in either the body or the infobox? bridies (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of cited infoboxes but I realise music and video games kind of have this as a convention so will tick good to go on this as cited infobox covers points in the lead that I found problematic. --LauraHale (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)