Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fez (video game)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Fez (video game)

 * Nominator(s): czar ♔   04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On the occasion of Polytron's recent security breach, I thought it apt to seek a bronze star for Fez. It's an underdog of a game that received outstanding reviews but was buried under a mountain of coverage pertaining to its outspoken creator, Phil Fish. The game could have been famous only its relation to Fish, but turned out to have incredible merit on its own. I started to edit this article early in the year and it quickly became a complete rewrite with many interwoven substories about the precariousness of indie game development, the growing pains of online games journalism, the rekindling of interest in the 8-bit "retrogaming" aesthetic, and how esoteric game mechanics could meet the standard Nintendo-inspired influences yet still feel fresh... and receive widespread acclaim. The sourcing is comprehensive, and has led to two separate articles, now GAs: Phil Fish and Development of Fez. It also led to a spate of free use images and audio releases, including the Fez cover art, which became a featured picture. Considering the depth and EV of the gameplay video and other assets, I see more featured pictures in the future.

But this article was one of my bigger labors of love this year, and it led to my interest in asking devs to relicense their assets for the Commons, which has been a successful effort by most standards, as well as my interest in indie game GAs, of which I've had more than several since. The devs were really excited to see the article make the front page of Wikipedia. As relayed back to me, Fish said on Facebook, "somebody took it upon themselves to write a surprisingly long and accurate wikipedia entry for FEZ. im kind of amazed" I had other fun quotes (and Twitter retweets and favs), but I don't know where I put them and I'm leaving town in a few hours. It's been a good run, and the article has touched many people, so I'd like to take it full circle now. The prose (of a somewhat controversial subject) has seen few non-vandal edits since the rewrite, which leads me to believe that it stands to scrutiny and is sufficiently clear and concise. I believe Fez meets the featured article criteria, and I look forward to your feedback. czar ♔   04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT
Support as per comments below.


 * Overall this is a pretty freaking great article, if I may say so myself. All the references are in good shape, with the right date formats, authors, etc, the prose flows well, and all images have adequate FURs. Believe it or not, I haven't found a single issue with the page. Good job on it, ! URDNEXT (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (Please do not use 3rd level headers or higher, they corrupt the summary list of FA nominations. See FA-guidelines.) GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. Sorry for any incoveniences, ! Not happening again. URDNEXT (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero
Looks great; I just have a few complaints: Tezero (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ""Continuum" is a synthesized rendition of Frédéric Chopin's Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4." - Can this be expanded or otherwise merged into something else? I really, really don't like one-line paragraphs.
 * "Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." - Can you expand a little? Despite all the hype, I actually can't think of any of Fish's actual outbursts other than the cancellation of Fez 2 and saying that the Japanese game industry sucks (which I kind of agree with, when taken in context).
 * Per WP:EASTER, I don't recommend simply linking "who says, "Hey! Listen!"" - to Navi.
 * "Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher, Microsoft Games Studios, for botching its release,[38] with a lack of promotion and publicity.[38]" - Why is #38 cited twice?
 * One-line ¶ expanded. I purposely did not go into detail on the specifics of Fish's tabloid-y media coverage because I felt it was non-neutral and non-encyclopedic info. The sources that say he was outspoken go into enough detail, though if you think something specific should be added (perhaps that he made public comments about the industry or something like that) let me know. "Hey! Listen!" should be a redirect to Navi as it's something referenced throughout her article. I'd explain its reference to Navi in the prose, but since the source does not, I expect the logical leap to be made without it appearing as an Easter egg link. #38 looks like a floating citation error—now fixed. czar ♔   08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think info on Fish's acerbic nature would be plenty encyclopedic, as it lets the reader draw their own conclusions about him instead of saying "he's a jerk; just trust us", but if you feel strongly about it I won't belabor the matter. And I guess that's a good enough Navi justification, so I can support this in peace. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK

 * All images have sufficient source and author information and are CC - OK.
 * Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.
 * OTRS-images and soundfile have been checked by a member of the OTRS-team - OK.
 * (added a few more personality rights info tags to play it safe). GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment
 * Have you considered separate captions for each gameplay screenshot? Currently the gallery adds little for a "Fez" newbie (like me). OK, those are "gameplay screenshots", but what is actually going on? And what makes the 3 images significant? Any additional, brief caption info would be helpful here. Regarding the number of gallery images, i agree with other reviewers. Gallery images should be used cautiously and only with images of encyclopedic value. The main focus should stay on the article's text, supported by images, infoboxes and other additional elements. GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I expanded the caption. I think they're too similar to warrant separate descriptions, but I think the variety of images is still important to visualize the basic gameplay, especially for those who can't see the video. czar ♔   16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero

 * All sources look reliable; a few like Download.com seem kinda iffy but they're not used for anything substantive but their areas of expertise so I'm fine. Bandcamp's a social media site but it's being used here only as a first-party source so that's also okay.
 * Spotchecks:
 * 4: good; I can see that not much more was elaborated on about Fish's caustic remarks
 * 3: good
 * 12: good; nice job archiving the fickle 1UP.com
 * 7: good
 * 27: good, though you might want to specify that it was the "You got 2D in my 3D, or maybe 3D in my 2D" award. Leaving it simply as an "award" implies it was a GotY or something.
 * 13: good

As a result, I can continue to support this nomination. Source review passes. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by 84.127.80.114

 * People with visual impairment would appreciate alternative text: a short description of the screenshots of gameplay, such as "Forest stage" and "Gomez standing over a waterfall"; who is Phil Fish and who is Renaud Bédard. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good idea. Remember, multiple thumbnails aren't against the rules. Tezero (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , done czar ♔   18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMA should be followed: "on April 13, 2012,". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In reception, removing non-notable authors improves the focus (length criterion); they appear in the references already.
 * When covering technical faults, I would expect the actual faults. "Game Informer as minor" is less useful than "frame rate stalls during autosaves". 1UP.com describes some serious bugs: "bombs that refuse to budge", "Entire areas of the world map disappear". These pretty serious bugs could be mentioned in the development section.
 * This would be a good time to decide whether 1UP.com should be italicized; there were no objections.
 * It looks like some readers are interested in revenue. Perhaps the "At $10 per download" in its first day could be added. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed your concerns, if you can take a look. On the other points: the reception reviewers are listed because the predominant WPVG preference is to list the opinions as the author's and not the magazine's. Not saying I agree, but I've seen FACs asked to conform to this standard. With technical faults, the jargon of screentearing and associated specifics would be needless information for the average reader and I consider it outside the article's scope. I think it would be original research to add anything about the game's revenues if nothing has been published in reliable sources. And I don't agree with that part of WP:COMMA, but that's another thing altogether. But everything else should be done czar ♔   00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to mention the "anti-cubes"? What is the difference between an anti-cube and a cube from harder puzzles? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has sufficient context, yes—the anti-cubes come from harder puzzles. It's explained as much as the cubes. czar ♔   16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is important to mention Montreal and Toronto? Are they Canadian cities? Why not simply say "Canadian developers"? Is the nationality important because of the Canadian government loan? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's for spatial context. In a previous draft, Bédard was mentioned as being from Montreal too. Is it unimportant or distracting to you? I don't feel strongly if it's changed to "Canadian", though I prefer specificity when it errs on the side of interesting czar ♔   20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The remark "The two—of Montreal and Toronto, respectively[20]—" is quite distracting. As a reader that has hardly any knowledge of Canadian culture, I would appreciate some hints about "Montreal", "Toronto" and "Québécois". As a gamer, I would like to know the relevance to the subject; is video gaming in Canada special in any way? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're looking for. A link to video gaming in Canada would be only peripherally related, almost a submarine link. I'm not exactly the purveyor of Canadian culture myself, but Montreal and Toronto are global cities known worldwide and aren't linked for that reason. As for "Québécois", it's okay to use vocabulary unfamiliar to some. I'm changing the Montreal+Toronto mention to "Canadian", though I think the article will suffer for it. czar ♔   00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are the links different for "puzzle platform game" in the lead and the first paragraph?
 * Why both links "indie video game" and "indie game" in the lead?
 * This "(X360)" in the infobox is confusing and I do not see more information in the body. Was Microsoft Studios the only publisher for X360? Did they participate in the X360 release and not in the Windows one?
 * Why both links "Microsoft Studios (game studio)" and "Microsoft Games Studios" in the article?
 * "Cube-like space", a cube has actually six sides; a square, four. Would "square-like space" be more appropriate? Would "horizontal square" be more precise?
 * "Accrete" does not appear in every dictionary.
 * Note 1 is confusing: it is about "The final sequence", but there is no mention of sequences before. The following occurrence is "sequences of tetriminos". Do the cubes form these tetrominos?
 * In "The game's developer described", "developer" means "designer", right?
 * Would "It prioritizes puzzle-solving and patience over dexterity" be more appropriate? Are there traditional platformers about puzzle-solving and patience?
 * "The game's settings include", why is the same reference in the middle of the sentence?
 * "Anthropomorphized" should be "anthropomorphic". No one has said it: the alternative text is worth reading.
 * The screenshots of gameplay are very nice, but why are they relevant? Why not the screenshots 2 or 3? If they are all relevant, the screenshots for the article could be automatically selected depending on the current day. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made most of these changes. Some were artifacts of recent editing and others don't make much of a difference but it's easier to unify them than to discuss when someone insists. "Cube-like" should be fine because it's prefaced by talking about four sides. "Horizontal square" would certainly be more confusing. I think it's important to mention the kind of "dexterity", so as to give the sentence context. I chose screenshots that had the most variety. Screens 2 and 3 have a lot of empty space. If you're suggesting that the pictures change by time of day, it sounds inventive but unfeasible (WP users access at all times of the day at once) and way out of scope for this discussion. czar ♔   15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not by the time of day (UTC) but the current day (1, 2, 3... 360, 361...); that is feasible. Should we try and see if that improves the article? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bad idea. For example, someone might look up the Fez article to show their friend something they'd seen the previous day and then be frustrated to find it missing. Honestly, I really don't see the problem with just including a bunch of screenshots; I mean, think of all the non-video-game articles, like those on countries and wide groupings of animals, that have plenty more images. Tezero (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tezero. Gimmickry only muddies an encyclopedia, and there's really no limit to the number of non-free images that can be used in an article—just look at Seattle, San Francisco, London or Statue of Liberty. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All images are free, this is one strong point in . There are 15 screenshots. If there is no limit, why not include them all? Which of those would cause frustration if missing? Screenshot 2 is used in the Korean Wikipedia. Why exactly three screenshots and why these three specifically? Is it because they are the only ones with enough variety? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is getting way off-topic. Common sense indicates that a 15-screenshot gallery would be overkill. There should be no frustration caused if any one of the 15 were not included because they're not "missing". I have no idea why kowp chose screenshot two, but that would be a question for them, not me. Why are there three? Because we currently have consensus for three. It is an appropriate number that shows a variety of settings and level styles. If you want to make a case for a specific screenshot, that's your prerogative, but everyone else has been fine with the current selections. czar ♔   12:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would 15 images be overkill? I thought there was no limit. Cannot content like wide images be used? What does think about a random selection? The German Wikipedia shows a gallery of 5 screenshots; is number 3 more sensible in English? I cannot find this consensus for 3 screenshots in the article guidelines or in the article talk page. So, is there a clear consensus that these 3 screenshots and only these 3 screenshots are appropriate for the article? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fifteen images would be far on the large side not so much because of bandwidth concerns, but because the prose isn't that long and galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia. What if, as a compromise, we set up a link like this to view more? Tezero (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's consensus by editing (not an explicit amount from the video game guidelines)—the three images are assumed to be enough if uncontested to this point. If you want to overturn it, your argument has to be enough to convince others to create a new consensus. Unless that pertains to the FAC, the conversation's best suited for the article talk page. The above quotes should explain why 15 gameplay images would be overkill. There is also already a link to the Commons category at the bottom of the page. czar  ♔   02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The three images were assumed to be enough and relevant. Do the other editors think that these three screenshots are the only appropriate ones and that all of them should be displayed? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber
Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fez designer and Polytron founder Phil Fish received celebrity for his outspoken public persona - huh? "received celebrity" sounds really weird. I'd say "gained celebrity" maybe, or "became a celebrity" - let me think on other alternatives...or offer a suggestion yourself


 * treasure chests animations that liken to that of... - clumsy..two issues...--> "treasure chests animations that resemble/are reminiscent of those of ..."


 *  This second half of the game is less easygoing... --> "more challenging" sounds more natural here.


 *  The game's puzzles are based around discovery. - redundant - let following sentences speak for themselves. Also true of most games. Hence I'd remove it.


 * Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher - dequote - "berated"? "admonished"? lots of alternatives without resorting to quotes

Do we have any information on how much money Fish and others have made out of it so far? And how much it cost to make. Any numbers at all?

Otherwise a nice read and nearly over teh finish line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review. I think I got everything—what do you think? As for the "fiercely criticized"—I preferred the quote there because the sentiment is negative. I felt the quote makes it more generous. Anyway, changed everything you mentioned. There is no RS on how much money the game made or cost (other than its sales figures, which are in the article). I did ask on Quora a while ago, but that isn't reliable, and supposedly an old tweet estimated the cost of production at half a million dollars, but the tweets are deleted and the only source is unreliable. czar ♔   18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All cool - support now - could add an adverb to convey fierceness...."hotly rebuked?" ....but all in order... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Next steps
Ready to close? czar ♔   21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically they wait a bit to see if anyone else has input. Shouldn't be longer than a couple days. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's Comments
 * I am not satisfied that a consensus has been reached that the FA criteria have been met. The source review seems superficial. For example, what makes this a reliable source? And this ? From a superficial reading I see that the prose remains below FA standard (see for example "Fez's development cycle developed a reputation for its protracted five-year length and public exposure." Where we have "development" and "developed" with just one word separating them). I can't speak for my colleague Ian, but the prospects for the promotion of this candidate are not looking good at this stage, and I will not be promoting this until I have seen more thorough reviews that address all the FA criteria. At the moment I would be embarrassed to see this on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I myself am not well versed in their editorial policies, but both sites are classed as reliable by the Video games project per WP:VG/RS. Tezero (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If Fez isn't good enough for FA, then I guess we're not even close with Sleeping Dogs, . URDNEXT (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, ; FA-readiness is not a continuum, but more of a multi-dimensional graph. For example, perhaps the sources would be better received, although Gamasutra and GameSetWatch I wouldn't have expected to be contested. That being said, no, our work there is not done. Tezero (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you still on board with the Dogs FA? URDNEXT (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, I've just been kind of distracted and busy, plus I still haven't played this game (only watched short gameplay videos and read articles) so I'm not well-versed in what exactly is necessary to be covered and what isn't. (Perhaps this discussion should move, though...) Tezero (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Embarrassed" is, I hope, an exaggeration. As for the sources, they should all meet WP:VG/RS vetted standards. If you have any more specific concerns about the prose or anything else, I'm happy to address it. Prose quality hasn't been an issue for me before. czar ♔   02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with GrahamColm about the prose quality. I noticed it myself after looking at the article soon after the nom: rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness. Similar problems dogged Mischief Makers a few months ago. Initially, I decided to hold off on my review until other editors had made significant comments on the prose (which did not happen), and then, after the FU3 controversy, I delayed further to avoid potential awkwardness. My Wikipedia time currently is spent scanning materials for Red Phoenix and his Dreamcast project, so I don't have time to prose review such a long article. But I can say that it needs a thorough working-over by at least one outside copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm very surprised to hear you say that. I gave it another read and rephrased any part I felt you may have been referencing, but I felt that even those changes were minor. I'd be interested to see a few examples of where y'all think the prose is falling short of 1a professional brilliance. czar ♔   00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph of the lead alone:
 * "developed by indie developer" — "Developed" and "developer" twice in four words.
 * "It is a 2D game set in a 3D world: the two-dimensional player-character receives a fez that tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension." — "2D" and "3D" inexplicably introduced before "two-dimensional" and "three-dimensional", plus "tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension" is vague and in-universey.
 * "are built around the core mechanic" — If they're "built around" it, then we already know that the mechanic is important, so "core" is redundant.
 * "rotating between four 2D views of a 3D space—as four sides around a cube—where the environment realigns between views to create new paths." — Even as someone who has seen the game in action, I find this description hard to follow. What could "four 2D views of a 3D space" mean? The hyphenated section doesn't make it clearer. And "the environment realigns between views to create new paths" is extremely vague. What does "between views" mean? What is "the environment" in this case? What does it mean for the environment to "realign"—was it ever not aligned? What does the phrase "new paths" mean, and why are these paths important?
 * Like I said, I don't have time to prose review an article of this length—particularly when the prose issues appear to be more than superficial. It needs at least one outside copyeditor (possibly two) to give it a spitshine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you don't have the time for a full review, but how would you put those four instances, at least? If you played the game, I think you'd appreciate how the "core mechanic" is known for being notoriously difficult to explain in prose, nevertheless in a single sentence. The other parts seem more like personal preference than "rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness" to me. czar ♔   05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been around 77% done with the game for a while (I got stuck and just didn't feel like walkthrough-ing it - Thomas Was Alone was my real gem from that Humble Bundle) and I agree - it's something that pervades nearly every design choice made in the game and yet it's tough to pin down. I'd like to think we could speed-recruit a couple WP:VG copyeditors before this FAC closes, but honestly since no one's gotten back about those questionable Sonic X sources even after I summarized the facts of each one, one can't be too optimistic. Some of these complaints are borderline unactionable, moreover. Tezero (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They aren't unactionable in the slightest. I'm aware that Fez's gameplay is hard to summarize, but that doesn't mean that 1a can be bypassed. I see that you've worked on the sentences I mentioned. While it's an improvement, the gameplay discussion is still confusing—and it shows, again, that the article needs fresh eyes. I'll provide rewrite suggestions (and these are only suggestions) for the final two sentences:
 * "Protagonist Gomez lives on a two-dimensional (2D) plane until he receives a magical fez, which reveals that his world has a third dimension. Controlling Gomez, the player navigates a 2D environment that may be rotated left or right to remove obstacles and solve puzzles."
 * Take or leave my choices: I only meant to show that these sentences could be phrased in a clearer and more concise way. Grab a copyeditor or two for the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your view of the prose, but your opinion is noted czar ♔   01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Screw it, we can still try. I've let WP:VG know. Tezero (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I entered this to support Graham Colm's statement, which you had essentially brushed off. Brush off my feedback as well, if you like—but the nomination gets an oppose from me in its current state. I leave it to the coordinators to decide if the opposition is warranted. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the passages that need copy editing? If only a few, I think I can handle them. URDNEXT (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to give the article an extensive (or similar to that) copyedit. Is it mainly a syntax problem? I see sentences that could be better structured. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 12:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've given most parts of the article a copyedit, the syntax has generally been improved but in all honesty the prose is not a concern at all? Some things here and there could be phrased better, but it's almost negligible. I know that the FAC process is dreary and off-putting, but this article seems to meet much and if not all the FA criteria. It is 1a) well-written, 1b) comprehensive and 2a) lead is concise and summarises the article. Not sure what else there is to copyedit! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits were very minor. Looks like Czar made some big improvements in certain areas, though. In any case, my schedule has recently opened up, so I'll start one of my standard, line-by-line prose reviews later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

 * For starters, the lead's opening paragraph doesn't mention the fez or the protagonist, which leaves the discussion of Fez's gameplay ungrounded. These two elements were in the prose when I first read the article, but they have been removed for some reason. I recommend re-adding them.
 * "a game mechanic where" — "Where" is a strange word here: is a game mechanic a place? "Wherein" or "in which" would be preferable.
 * "the viewable two-dimensional world 90 degrees left or right about four sides of a cube" — Three points. First, what is the difference between the "viewable two-dimensional world" and the two-dimensional world? Second, why is it necessary to mention the degree at which the cube turns, given that we already know its number of sides? Third, replacing "about" with "around" would increase clarity.
 * "the three-dimensional environment" — What is the three-dimensional environment?
 * "the two-dimensional levels" — This can (and should) be abbreviated to 2D for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation in parentheses after the first mention of "two-dimensional".
 * "The objects in ... The object of" — Two sentences in a row begin with "the object".
 * "cube fragments" — What is a cube fragment?
 * "which included Fez's" —> "which documented Fez's".
 * A rewrite suggestion:
 * "Fez was first released on as a yearlong Xbox Live Arcade to critical acclaim exclusive on April 13, 2012, to critical acclaim, and was later ported to other platforms." (Italics signify an addition.)

That's it for now. It's a very pretty article—excellent work securing all of this free media. Prose definitely needs work, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to clean up. I'll be back tomorrow with more of my review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph of the lead mostly rattles off awards—tedious reading, even in an article body. The award information should be slimmed down and generalized, and other material (perhaps related to its critical reception) should be put in its place.
 * "canceled as Fish" —> "canceled when Fish".
 * "Fez is a two-dimensional platform game set in a three-dimensional world." — Introduce the abbreviations 2D and 3D after the long-form versions here, since you use those abbreviations later.
 * "a peaceful, two-dimensional life" — What is a two-dimensional life?
 * "giant golden hexahedron splinter" — What is a hexahedron splinter? Also, it should be "giant, golden".
 * "viewable 2D world" — Again, what is the difference between the 2D world and the "viewable 2D world"?
 * "about four sides" —> "around four sides".
 * "3D cube-like" —> "3D, cube-like".
 * "Fez's puzzles are built around how" — A little shoddy. Perhaps, "Fez's puzzles involve using" or "Fez's puzzles require the player to use". Just make sure to change the later part of the sentence to "rotation mechanic to reveal s new paths and connect s ".
 * "forest platforms are tree branches and factory platforms include pistons" — Why is it necessary to mention the various visual themes of platforms? Even if it is, the idea of a "forest platform" (or "factory platform") won't make sense to a non-gamer, and should be replaced with "platforms in a forest" (or other location).
 * "crates that activate switches, bombs that reveal passages, platforms that collapse, and climbable ivy." — Why is it necessary to list all of these? Surely at least one or two could be removed (particularly "climbable ivy") with no loss in clarity for the average reader.
 * "hidden warp gates, enigmatic obelisks, Tetris tetrominos, invisible platforms, puns, pixelated hieroglyphics, a decipherable alphabet, QR codes, treasure maps, and treasure chests with keys and artifacts that factor into later puzzles." — Again, why the extensive list? It seems to border on WP:GAMECRUFT.
 * As an aside, the Gameplay section contains no actual examples of puzzles in Fez. Definitely an oversight to correct: without an example, all the talk of "puzzles" has no meaning to someone unacquainted with the game.
 * "The game does not depend on item collection and an inventory, but vague hints." — What does it mean for a game to "depend on item collection and an inventory", and how can a game depend on "vague hints"? I'm lost.
 * "Its puzzles can be solved soon after their discovery." — That seems to be the nature of puzzles in general. Why is this relevant?
 * "Fez presents false signals alongside decipherable codes that the player can either choose to interpret or ignore." — Is a "false signal" disinformation or a red herring? What is the purpose of "decipherable codes"?
 * "One of the game's recurring themes is an ancient civilization that attempted to make sense of their dimension." — If this is the 2D/3D dimension, it should be clarified.
 * The Fish quote in Gameplay refers to "Trixels", which are not introduced until the Development section. It should be moved down (or removed from the article) to prevent confusion.
 * "traditional platforming dexterity" — What is "traditional" about it?
 * "that harkens back to" — Informal phrase. Perhaps "in reference to games from".
 * "Its homage includes Tetris tetrominos inscribed on the walls and in the sky, The Legend of Zelda treasure chest animations, Super Mario Bros. mushroom levels, travel by pipe, and floating platforms. It also features Nintendo Entertainment System-style sound effects, the navigational aide Dot (who says, "Hey! Listen!"), and sewer levels presented in the style of a Game Boy display." — More gamecruft, including a second (unnecessary) mention of Tetris tetrominos.
 * "alleyways with neon signs" — Why is this necessary to mention?
 * "Fez's New Game Plus mode imports previous game progress as Gomez collects "anti-cubes" for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal, and adds another perspective-based feature." — The grammar of the pre-comma segment breaks down at "progress as Gomez", and "for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal" is impenetrable to me. And what is this "perspective-based feature"?


 * Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2
 * "While Fez was released to wide acclaim, Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." — Why is this in the opening paragraph of the Development section, or indeed in that section at all? It would make more sense in Reception. Further, why contrast ("while") Fez's acclaim with Fish's persona, given that nothing negative is said about the latter?
 * A sentence rewrite:
 * " The game that became Fez's development began when as Montreal-based Phil Fish in Montreal and Toronto-based Shawn McGrath in Toronto collaborated on a puzzle game, envisioned by McGrath 's idea for a puzzle game based , in which a 3D space was viewed from multiple 2D angles on 2D views of a 3D space ."


 * "lore" — It's very informal to apply this word to a work of fiction. Try "setting" or "backstory".
 * "Fez was first ... Fez was nominated" — Two sentences in a row begin with "Fez was".
 * "and when Fish" — "and, when Fish".
 * I don't understand what the IGF and GDC awards have to do with Fish's exit from mainstream game development. Perhaps break that single sentence into two.
 * "The game won 'Excellence in Visual Art', and created a surge of public interest in Fez" — Grammatically, this means that Fez created a surge of public interest in Fez. Perhaps "which created" instead of "and created".
 * "concurrent to a similar swell of interest in indie game developers" — What does this mean?
 * "with a more experimental ethos" — I have no idea what this means. More experimental than what? And what is an experimental ethos?
 * "considered canceling the project when the nearby Québécois developer-publisher Trapdoor offered to help." — This means that Trapdoor's offer led Fish to consider canceling the project. Does that represent the sources or is it a grammatical error?
 * "partnership rescued the game" — Partnership with his friends and family or with Trapdoor, or both?
 * "the earlier PAX East 2011" — I don't understand what this means. How does it relate to the PAX 2011 already described?
 * A rewrite:
 * "The film chronicles the stories of follows the production of games by several indie developers at various stages of their games' development cycles ."


 * "jeopardizes the game's future" — "The game" should be clarified as "Fez", since discussion of other indie projects has just taken place.
 * "exacerbates his outspoken public perception" — "Exacerbate" means "to make worse". Is that in line with the source? Further, what is an "outspoken public perception"?
 * "the part where" — "the moment when".
 * "end of development" —> "end of Fez's development".
 * "Independent Games Festival Chairman" — You already mentioned and linked IGF earlier. Axe the link and abbreviate to IGF for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation first.
 * "Jonathan Blow, and that he" — I don't understand how his burnout is causally related to the positive feedback, so perhaps replace "and that" with "but that".
 * "and sold" —> "and it sold".
 * "their co-publisher" — Who is "they"?
 * "its release" — The release of Microsoft, "they", the XBLA platform or the game? It's not clear.
 * "PC" — "PC" is a casual term best replaced with a concrete operating system. Apply this principle to all uses of "PC" in the article.
 * "their long development cycle" — Who is "they"?
 * "turns 2D tiles ("triles") into sides of a 3D cube pixel" — This is hard to follow. Perhaps just scrap the talk of "3D cube pixels" and use the technical word (voxel) with a wikilink. I would recommend this rewrite: "uses 2D tiles ("triles") as texture maps on the sides of voxels".
 * "each tiled side of the 3D trixel, which Bédard's custom software compiled into 3D trixels" — I have absolutely no idea what this means.
 * "'overwhelming', but" —> "'overwelming' but".
 * "philosophy, where" — A philosophy is not a place, so this should be "wherein" or "in which".
 * "its code never contained an antagonist" — Why "its code"? This is not really a programming issue. Perhaps "its design".
 * "while borrowing its sounds" — What is "it"?
 * "portions of Fez game" — Should be "portions of Fez" or "portions of the game".
 * "its sound effects" — What is "it"?
 * "and based the" —> "and he based the".
 * "Fez's pre-2010 music ideas" — Which are?
 * "its sound qualities" — What is "it"?
 * "decided against it" — What is "it"?
 * "called the work" — Which work?
 * "Game Informer's Miller" — Should be a full name.
 * "He later released" — Who is "he"?
 * "ahead of high-budget games like Black Ops 2 and Halo 4." — Is this original research, or does the source explicitly point out that Fez beat triple-A games?
 * "developer Jason Rohrer" —> "developer Jason Rohrer's", since he isn't connected to Warner.
 * "its minimalism" — What is "it"?
 * "likened its art style to Cave Story" — Unless they likened the art style to Cave Story as a whole, this should be "likened its art style to that of Cave Story".
 * "its nostalgic manner" — What is "it"?
 * A rewrite:
 * "Oli Welsh of Eurogamer lamented how that 'retro pixel art' became an indie game cliché during the length of the game's development, but he believed that Fez stood out from saw a departure from other indie game the stereotypes of its peers. He noted that the game was dedicated alongside the game's dedication to the wonderment of early Nintendo titles, noting, and that 'Fish clearly worships the Nintendo of his boyhood'."

That should do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Welsh described Fez as Shigeru Miyamoto's peace-loving 1970s surrealist 2001: A Space Odyssey" — What does that mean?
 * "Edge described it" — What is "it"?
 * "Echochrome did it better, among others" —> "Echochrome and other games used the technique more effectively".
 * "potential best of the bunch" — There's a missing word here, or perhaps just a grammatical error. It needs to be fixed, either way.
 * "Escher-heavy" — What does it mean to be "Escher-heavy"?
 * "Welsh compared its" — What is "it"?
 * "to 80s game" —> "to the 80s game".
 * "They also came to" — Who is "they"?
 * "Polygon's Gies described his uncertainty about the intentionality of technical frame rate issues as having a 'certain genius'." — I'm baffled by this sentence. What does it mean?
 * "year, and after the Humble Bundle" —> "year, and, after the Humble Bundle".
 * Thanks for the review, . I believe I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. czar ♔   04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Very, very nice article. Structure and coverage are solid, and it's one of the prettiest VG FACs I've ever seen. Prose has improved dramatically since my first comment. (Hopefully the few wording tweaks I made weren't against the sources.) WPVG will be lucky to have an FA this good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.