Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game development/archive1

Game development
I recently rewrote this article and it occurred to me that a lot of people might be interested in the topic. Pretty thorough walkthrough of the stages of computer and video game development. It's been through peer review and has had a few copyedits. Some people suggested that it should be renamed, but that was discarded since we don't have any articles on other types of game development (at least not yet), such as board game or card game development. The articles game design, game designer, game programmer and game programming are nice sister articles to this one. Self-nomination.&mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 22:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) 5) The "The development process" is the only section with reasonable content, while it's contents do not appear very specific to game development (see 4)). The other sections are single paragraphs mostly. This indicates that the structure should be revised and/or the article is lacking content. Looking at the article, I think both should be addressed. 5) The "sidebars" are non-standard and look ugly in my browser. This is not a magazine article, but an encyclopedia. If the content of these bars is not relevant enough to be in the main article, remove them or put them in another article and link to it. 6) I don't get a good picture of the development of a typical game. How many people work on it? What kind of education/work experience do they have? What tasks do they perform? How many time does it take? Etc. etc. etc. 7) The article focusses mainly on "big, high profile games", and only briefly mentions "independent" developers (whatever "independent" may mean). What about simple games, for example for the web or even cell phones? What about simpler and smaller Games? Jeronimo 07:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Very interesting and informative but still need some work: 1) The two sidebars ("Regression testing" and "What's an asset?") make the sections next to them difficult to read. It's a combination of the spacing and colors. They might work better as separate sections. 2) There should be a separate section for "Completion" that details what happens when the game goes gold. 3)I'd like to see more specific examples of how long certain games took to make. Mention a few popular games, their development time and reason for that time duration. Carrp | Talk 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) No lead section. 2) No references. These first two are basic requirementes for an FAC. Please don't nominate articles that do not even meet such basic requirements. Furthermore: 3) There's no history section. How did this field develop over the years? 4) We get no comparison with development of "ordinary" software - I am a software developer, and I see a lot of parallels (and differences). These should be highlighted. I'm especially missing information about the visual and audio parts of the game, which differ most from normal software.
 * Object. Agreed with Jeronimo on all points. Get rid of/expand/merge non-sections like culture, locales, overview. Apart from the main development process section, none is really thorough/satisfying. An elegant way of addressing two of the concerns cited above by other users would be to move up content from the Overview section into the lead, after slight editing. Phils 10:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)