Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War: Ascension/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

God of War: Ascension

 * Nominator(s): JDC808   ♫  18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I've tried to edit and model this off of the recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808  ♫  18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Image comments by David Fuchs

 * I'm not sure about the NFCC rationales for File:GOWAscension MP.jpg, File:GoWAscension Kratos vs Charybdis.jpg, and File:God-of-War-Ascension-Collectors-Edition-Kratos-Statue-002.jpg. The Ascension map seems mostly to be background dressing; it doesn't demonstrate gameplay, and doesn't seem necessary to explain multiplayer or critics' response to it. The Kratos statue is really just illustrative, and the Charybdis image doesn't seem essential either, especially as you're illustrating a part of the game that didn't make it to the finished product. I would suggest removing the above images and looking for a gameplay image that touches on the specific aspects called out in the gameplay and reception sections (also noting: the reviewers mention a color-coding system that doesn't seem to be discussed in the gameplay section.)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Replaced the MP image with one that shows the color-coding system, and added its information to the section. Replaced the Charybdis one with concept art of the sequence. Does the statue one need removed? -- JDC808  ♫  16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The gameplay image seems better, but I'm still not sold on the statue or now the concept art image. The sequence was cut from the game; why is our understanding of the topic significantly hurt by not having visualizations of a cut sequence discussed in a paragraph? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk )
 * For one, it gives more visual appeal. Two, which is more important, it gives insight into what could have happened, as for someone who is interested in the history of the development of the game, that's intriguing to be able to see that. A good example would be a character. Not all characters appear in a game as they were originally designed. Having concept art of the original design and having a screenshot of how the character actually appeared in the game is really nice to have from a developmental stand point. -- JDC808  ♫  15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but the points you're arguing don't jive with WP:NFCC. Obviously it's nice to have images, but when they're non-free that's not a standard we follow. Removing images of a portion of the game that didn't actually end up in the final product isn't significantly harming reader understanding of the topic, hence it's not defensible per the criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PresN

 * It's "SCE Santa Monica Studio", or "Sony Santa Monica", not just "Santa Monica Studio"
 * It can be stated without "SCE" or "Sony".
 * "In the lead up to the game's release on GodofWar.com" - the game was released on godofwar.com? Or just the graphic novel? Also, there's no hyphen in "graphic-novel". The whole sentence is feeling a bit unwieldy with the long aside as well- try something like "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes, featuring social challenges to unlock bonus content, was launched as Rise of the Warrior on GodofWar.com in the lead up to the game's release."
 * Done.
 * Tense shift- the graphics "are true" to prior games, but the story "was not" as compelling as prior games
 * GOCE copy-editor mistake.


 * Why do the publisher, director, and multiplayer mode get a special citation callout in the infobox?
 * It's from back when the article was first being developed and citations were put where confirmed. I never removed them from there because I never saw it as an issue.
 * odd and unintentional redirects kicking off the gameplay section- the see also link, multiplayer, third-person, gorgons, harpies, centaurs. Also, why does Gorgon get a capital letter, but not Sirens, Cerberus, or Talos, which are also specific, named creatures usually capitalized?
 * What's wrong with the "see also" link and the others in general? They link to where they're supposed to. As for capitalization, I admittedly missed the capitalization of Sirens, but the rest are how each one's respective Wikipedia article treats them in regards to capitalization (they don't). The only exception is "cerberuses". The "cerberuses" in these games are not the one-and-only Cerberus of Greek mythology. In the God of War universe, there are many cerberuses.
 * A wiktionary link to wraith? I'm not sure I would even regular link that, much less external link it.
 * Covered in response two points down.
 * "The game features a variety of puzzles, some simple while other may be more complex." - not only should it be "others", but this sentence hedges itself- "may be". Just say "The game features a variety of puzzles, ranging from simple to complex."
 * Done.
 * This whole paragraph is a bit off, actually. Why list every monster in the game? "The game features several creatures from Greek mythology as enemies, such as A, B, C." There's no need to list a dozen monsters to pad out the paragraph. Your first paragraph to God of War III is more readable.
 * God of War III also lists all of the mythological monsters that appear in it. Looking at it from a perspective of someone who has no knowledge about this series, I would find that interesting to know what mythological monsters are actually in these games. I cut back on the game specific monsters.
 * "wrapped around the character's wrists" - just say "his wrists", no need to use a longer term for a specific character.
 * Okay.
 * "A new weapons mechanic" - mention that it's new to the series, not just "new"
 * Is it not understood that it's new to the series?
 * "These include a sword" - These are a sword- include implies that your only listing some, not the whole list
 * Done.
 * "Kratos may punch or kick foes as part of the new combat system." - drop "as part of the new combat system", this whole section is about the combat system.
 * Yes, this whole section is about the combat system, but this is a new mechanic to the combat system.
 * "because several components of the game are based in this environment" - wordy, "because several sections of the game are submerged."
 * I didn't really like that rewording, but I changed it to "a necessary ability as substantial time is spent here."
 * What fills the Rage meter?
 * Accidentally cut that part when I did some condensing.
 * "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed depending on the goal" - can you only do one or the other, based on what's going on? Or can you construct a bridge, then deconstruct it again even if that's not helpful? Either way, I don't think "depending on the goal" is a useful addition to the sentence.
 * Removed.
 * "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to be bi-located, creating a "shadow" version" -> "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to create a "shadow" duplicate"
 * Some of these are what the GOCE copy-editor did and "bi-located" is one example.
 * "player takes control of the warrior and aligns with one of the four deities" - does it really take 6 different citations to handle this sentence, or are some of these meant for the earlier parts of the paragraph?
 * The citations following each name are trailers demonstrating some of each god's abilities for choosing them. The last is a reference to the instruction manual. I don't remember the reason for the other one without checking the link, but I removed it.
 * Spartan and Trojan are both linking to disambiguation pages
 * Fixed, though the very first part of those pages explained the terms' usage here.
 * Okay, I'm going to stop here. This whole section is just... way too long. It's a combination of two things- you go into too much detail in explaining exactly how every mechanic works instead of just saying "there is an X mechanic that lets Kratos do Y", and your writing style is really wordy. There's a lot of roundabout sentence construction, add-on phrases that don't add anything substantive to the sentence, etc. God of War III got the idea across in 5 paragraphs (4.5, really), while this takes 9 big ones- even the addition of multiplayer shouldn't have doubled the length. It's just a bit much; I get tired just getting through the section, and I see that the rest of the article is going to keep up that pace- that 11-paragraph release section is making my eye twitch just looking at it, as it's long enough to be its own sub-article. You really need to substantially cut down on the length of this article. I'll return to review the rest of the article soon.
 * -- Pres N  19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree with needing to substantially cut down the length. God of War III's gameplay section was actually two or three paragraphs longer when it passed FAC. After it passed FAC, I decided to cut out a lot of the similar gameplay elements and just put a link that covers all of that (I actually decided that was something I wanted to do during the FAC review, but didn't do it during the review process as to not mess up anything for the reviewers). You're leaving out that there are subsections, which are there so that it's not an 11-paragraph release section that you're making it out to be (By that, I mean it's not 11 straight paragraphs, there are subsections that break that up. It's like reading a book; if the main section is the book, the subsections are the chapters.). -- JDC808  ♫  21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by hahnchen
I've not really reviewed the article, just bits of it. I probably won't have time to do a deep a dive as I did for GOW3, but here are some thoughts nonetheless.
 * I thought the cyclops multiplayer image was better because it gave you a sense of scale and showed a unique environmental danger that you wouldn't find in other games.
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs didn't seem to like it which is why I changed it. I'll change it back because you're right.
 * I would still include a gameplay image showing standard single player gameplay.
 * Will look for one. Put one in the Plot section. -- JDC808  ♫  15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just pick a straight gameplay image with Kratos swinging his blades about - that's typical gameplay, rather than the QTE that you've picked out. - hahnch e n 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll see what I can find.
 * I'd prefer the sales data in the reception section rather than the release section. This is where it's most expected.
 * I've always put it there in release.
 * "free for players who obtained the Season Pass from the Collector's Edition." It isn't free if you've already paid for it.
 * Fixed. I guess I was thinking with like PS Plus or XBL where you get "free" games every month.
 * Your Gamerankings scores do not line up, consider whether you need it at all given the audience find Metacritic sufficient to show the consensus.
 * Fixed. I forgot to change the one in the prose when I updated the score about a week ago.
 * I'm not sure that Bros before Hos needs mention at all, it seems weird having its own little subsection.
 * Okay, I'll think about what to do with it.
 * Consider your use of quotes carefully. You pick out a lot of tiny quotes such as 'Edge also said the fixed camera system is an "asset"', this reads to me as though the word "asset" is in scare quotes which gives the opposite meaning.  It also looks clumsy and throws off the readers' inner voice.
 * Okay, I'll look at it.
 * "In 2014, Ascension received nominations from two prestigious annual awards." Remove this, you don't need a summary sentence for two nominations, and "prestigious" is fluff.
 * Okay. -- JDC808  ♫  23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * hahnch e n 22:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need a better development section. A lot of it isn't even development, but just meaningless marketing milestones.
 * The rumours of the game (some of which are wrong) are trivial and unencyclopedic.
 * Removed and just put a one liner saying a bunch of sources claimed a 2012 release.
 * I don't need David Jaffe to tell me Asmussen is doing "cool stuff". Just say Papy is the director and Asmussen did not work on the game.
 * Removed the "cool stuff"; replaced with "working on another project".
 * "Sony stated the game would offer" - you go on to reprint a meaningless marketing nothing. Consider cutting this down, this is not an exhaustive list.
 * Ended up cutting the whole paragraph.
 * When Papy revealed plot points is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your plot.
 * Goes with above point.
 * When Simon revealed circle button changes is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your gameplay.
 * Cut this down.
 * I don't know see how Jaffe's hypothetical game has any bearing on the actual game.
 * Since he created this series and was the first game's director, I find it interesting to see what his perspective is and I thought other readers might as well.
 * Why are you citing Game Rant when it just quotes the significantly more reliable IGN?
 * It was the article I had read.
 * More trivial stuff in the Multiplayer section, such as what PAX attendees get.
 * Trimmed some.
 * Yet you miss a development postmortem at Gamasutra which dives into the difficulties Santa Monica had working on their first ever multiplayer game.
 * hahnch e n 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will read. May not get to implementing until Monday. -- JDC808  ♫  02:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Implemented with a request to have the new paragraph copy-edited. -- JDC808  ♫  21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "5. Early MP Testing Forced Us to Think of the Game as an Evolving Service" is really important to the multiplayer beta and you've ignored it. - hahnch e n 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't really ignore it. When I first read it, I didn't see much that it would add to the article. Rereading it and thinking more about it, there's a couple of points that could be useful. -- JDC808  ♫  21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JDC808  ♫  14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp
Overall a very well written article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't hurt to specify which country the cover art in the infobox is from, and the image needs ALT text.
 * It did state North America, but someone said it was not only North America's.
 * Ref 138 is dead. Check links also finds a fair few redirects.
 * Couldn't find a working link, so removed.
 * It's nice to see many of your sources are archived, but there are plenty that are not. It's not required for FAC, but in my experience the more online references you archive the less likely this article is to appear at FAR. Otherwise your references formatting is consistent and up to standards.
 * I usually archive them, I've just been lazy on doing it recently.
 * All that would archive have been archived. -- JDC808  ♫  15:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed." I don't understand how something that is already broken can be 'deconstructed'. Can you explain to me what this means in game? Accordingly consider providing a better explanation to the reader.
 * During the construction, you can also reverse what you've done if needed. Will try to explain better.
 * "The Prison of the Damned is a massive prison built upon the imprisoned Hecatonchires Aegaeon..." "Aegaeon" hasn't been introduced at this stage. Googling allowed me to familiarise myself with the term, but it may be worth briefly explaining exactly what this is to the reader; I don't think it would make sense to people not familiar with the game or mythology as is.
 * Linked his name.
 * "He is attacked by all three Furies and severs Megaera's arm". It's already been established in the plot that Megaera has been killed. How is she alive again?
 * It's in the past. The narrative of this game shifts between the present and past (stated in the Setting section). The preceding paragraph states that it's 3 weeks before the present time, and this paragraph is a week after the previous paragraphs events.
 * Oh right, my bad. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One instance of "Charybdis"does not have a capital.
 * That was actually done on purpose. Charybdis is the name of a sea monster in Greek mythology. In the Plot section where it states that Alecto transforms into a charybdis, I'm using "charybdis" to mean a type of sea monster rather than the sea monster named Charybdis. That may not have been the best way to do it. I'm going to make this easy and just replace "charybdis" in the Plot with sea monster.
 * Nine instances of "he said" in the reception section gets a bit painful.
 * Cut it back to four.
 * Lead states that it won no awards, but the accolades section does not explicitly state this. As the lead should summarise the article, consider either removing this information from the lead or adding it to the accolades section.
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you. -- JDC808  ♫  06:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This review seems to have pretty well stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.