Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Western role-playing video games/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 08:44, 27 August 2012.

History of Western role-playing video games

 * Nominator(s): SharkD   Talk  16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has already passed GAN and I think it is FA-worthy. Please note that I generally only have Internet access on the weekends, and may take a while to respond. SharkD  Talk  16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to oppose, exactly, but I see a few things that need work before this can pass. One relatively straightforward fix needed is to normalize all the citations.  Make sure you have as much information for them all as possible, specifically author, title, work, and publisher.  Also, get all the date formats to match.  Right now, you're using at least three different ones.  I'd also like to note for other reviews that the "Diablo III Launching May 15– Digital Pre-Sales NOW OPEN" link is not dead.  It's getting a false positive that I discovered in the GAN a couple weeks ago. —Torchiest talkedits 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never used the "work" field before. What is its purpose? SharkD   Talk  03:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, which date format is preferred, and do the format of the "date" and "accessdate" fields need to match? SharkD   Talk  05:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "title=" is normally the actual title of the article, while "work=" is either the book, or the website, for example. As for the dates, no format is preferred, they just all need to match one way or the other. —Torchiest talkedits 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the dates for all the Web citations. Also, is it OK to use the "publisher" field for the website? That's what I've always done. SharkD   Talk  19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. In some cases, the publisher is not the same as the site.  Hopefully, someone else more knowledgeable can comment on it. —Torchiest talkedits 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation template italicizes the name of the "work", which is a problem because Website names should *not* be italicized. See:  SharkD   Talk  22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, just wanted to add that I agree with what you said here about not necessarily italicizing websites. I've been using the publisher field for them myself now. —Torchiest talkedits 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I did was italicize them within the article so that they cancelled each other out, resulting in no italicization. It would be better though if the template itself offered a better solution. SharkD   Talk  04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The  template really needs a "site=" parameter. —Torchiest talkedits 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I filled in the work and publisher fields of all the references except for a few press releases which I don't know how to handle. SharkD   Talk  03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For those, I think you would use the name of the news service that is showing it, e.g. Business Wire. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, or in the case of something like the Diablo III release information, the publisher should be ActivisionBlizzard. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 04:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

break 0
 * Weak oppose - All your citations are not right and lastly you may want to fix the grammar a tad. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, could someone please take a look at the grammar and punctuation? They are not my strongest attributes. SharkD   Talk  03:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific? I took a quick look at the citations and they look fine to me... Axem Titanium (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some places missing citations (example: 1. "Unlike many of the classic "Golden Age" RPGs..."), and footnotes like 2. "But later deleted and lost to history..." should be rephrased to be encyclopedic. As far as the citations themselves, on a quick look, 3. References should come before Bibliography, 4. sources like this one are of unclear reliability, 5. publications like The Escapist should be italicized, 6. citations like FN41 are incomplete, some are inconsistent (7. compare for example FNs 93 and 104, some 8. like FN119 are missing publisher, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I completed numbers 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. (Sorry for editing your post by adding the numbers.)
 * As for number 4, WP:VG/RS shows that the notability of the site has been discussed several times with no clear conclusion. The closest to a conclusion was this discussion where the site was considered "situational".
 * As for number 5, why should The Escapist be italicized? Websites are typically not. SharkD   Talk  00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, regardless. SharkD   Talk  03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note (this isn't a review): The Escapist should be italicized because it considers itself to be a magazine. That's why GamePro is italicized but IGN is not. Nomader (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for number 1, I'll keep looking for a source. SharkD   Talk  00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence completely as I could not find a source. SharkD   Talk  03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: very interesting article, and seems like you've covered a lot of ground here. I would have suggested a peer review between good and featured article candidacies though. The prose does not seem to be at featured standards. This may not be true anymore, since substantial copyediting has occurred over the past week. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC) A few comments at a brief glance:
 * Having a section titled "Recent video game consoles and multi-platform titles" is probably not a good idea, it would be better to use a more specific term than the vague "recent".
 * Fixed. SharkD   Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lastly, veteran game designer Cleve Blakemore's "Golden Era" retro-RPG, Grimoire, became notorious for having been "close to release" for over a decade, leading many to label it as vaporware.[138][139][140] However, Blakemore staunchly denies this" What does the "this" in the second sentence refer to?
 * He's denying the fact that his game is vaporware. SharkD   Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "One of the few successful video game RPGs not set in the swords-and-sorcery setting, Fallout was notable for its open-ended, largely non-linear gameplay and quest system, tongue-in-cheek humor, and pervasive sense of style and imagery highly reminiscent of Interplay's earlier Wasteland" This is a pretty awkward sentence, particularly at the end. Also you might want to attribute the description of notable.
 * Hopefully I fixed the awkwardness. As for the game's notability, is this not satisfied by the two citations I provided? SharkD   Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inevitably, 2005 saw Troika Games in financial trouble" There's probably a clearer way to say this.
 * I removed the "inevitably", but am not sure what other changes to make. SharkD   Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The third game in particular was notable for having a "ton of quests", rewarding exploration and approachable combat, but also for its high system requirements, unfinished feeling and atrocious voice acting." I'd prefer that you attribute these descriptions to critics, rather than saying in Wikipedia's voice that the acting was "atrocious".
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "And, collectively, Interplay's Fallout, Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate (particularly the last[67]) are considered examples of some of the finest RPGs ever made." According to whom? Fans? Critics? Industry executives?
 * Well, I can only cite the opinion of critics. SharkD   Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Two expansion packs, Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine, were eventually released, as well as several, smaller downloadable packages costing each between $1–3." too many commas here.
 * New wording: "Two expansion packs, Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine, were eventually released, as were several smaller downloadable packages costing each between $1–3." SharkD   Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1997, Black Isle released the groundbreaking" I'd suggest avoiding the easter egg link here.
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "one of the goals during development was to reproduce the feel of a live pen-and-paper RPG experience, complete with human dungeon master." Should this be "a human dungeon master" or "human dungeon masters"?
 * I think the current wording is correct in this case. SharkD   Talk  01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As of this revision ref 22 is showing a harverror
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of WP:REPEATLINKing and WP:OVERLINKing, common terms and major geographical regions shouldn't be linked. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Torchiest took care of those. SharkD   Talk  01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only done a few of the most obvious ones, so far. It'll take a number of passes to thin them out without removing too many. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 01:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are (or were) a few that are linked twice--once in the lead or first occurrence, and once in the sections dedicated to them. Is that too much? SharkD   Talk  03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely okay to link in the lead and then the first time the item appears in the body of the article. I'm not sure about linking again in a dedicated section.  I have been removing that type of link so far. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finished removing duplicate links. But I'm not sure which games are not linked on their first occurrence. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you considered mentioning Kingdoms of Amalur? I never played it but it was billed as a "new entry" in the RPG landscape.--124.182.160.245 (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I really liked reading the article but I found several instances where the first use of the name of the game is not wikilinked. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, if I may, strictly in terms of criteria 1b–1e (the article is comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable) and 4 (appropriate length and focus). Disclaimer: I have done some minor technical edits on the article over the past month. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

break 1
 * Comments I don't like to definitively say yes or no on prose, not considering myself a great arbiter of FA-level style, but I'm pretty tempted to say this needs a general copy edit. There are quite a lot of long, dense and not terribly elegant sentences, though some sections flow better than others in this respect. A few other bits and pieces that stood out:
 * Some possible tone issues here and there, such as saying that games were "more or less" the same (first section); talking about level creation "on the fly" (end of action-RPG section) and the need to "wow" audiences (start of last section).
 * I think "wow" (used as a verb) is correct, but the others can be changed. SharkD   Talk  04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm likely to change that "wow" when I get there, unless it's part of a quote. It's too informal. Dementia13 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "On the fly" got past me, but it won't fly, either. Fixed. Dementia13 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the end of the Decline section it's written that NPCs "became chattier", then the prose refers to "silliness and weirdness" and then calls anthropomorphic characters "embarrassing". I don't have any problem with the choice of words per se, but the quick succession of them kind of feels like the prose has veered from dry and disinterested to light-hearted punditry. As well, I think it's also caused by an overlap between levity in the word choice (see above) and subjective opinion (see below).
 * "Silly" and "weird" remain, however the others have been fixed. SharkD   Talk  03:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the console/multi-platform section, you've used the word "Ironically" to describe Bioware's change of direction. Dropping "ironic" into the prose is a personal peeve, as it so often indicates OR by a passing editor, and I see this sentence is sourced; but nevertheless I think there should be more specific attribution in the prose as to who said this situation is "ironic". I don't think all opinion needs direct attribution but maybe some of the stronger subjectivity: possible examples include the "embarrassing" animal characters mentioned above and the assertion that "innovation and quality need not necessarily be stymied" in the Indie/Eastern Europe section.
 * "Ironically" and "embarrassing" were deleted for POV reasons. As for the part about "innovation and quality", I'm actually not sure that statement's strong enough. One reason for the appeal of low-budget "grindhouse" films is that filmmakers were forced to use additional creativity in the absence of large production budgets. That likely applies here, and would be a good point to make, if it could be sourced. Dementia13 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "replayability" (in the Diablo section) surely can't be a word, and is dubious even as a neologism. At least use "replay-value".
 * From Replay value: "Replay value or replayability is a term found in combination with video games, but it may be also used to describe other kinds of games, movies, music, or theater plays. (...)" Here you can get some G-hits limited to our project's good sources. That said, "replay value" works just as well. SharkD   Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My spell-checker dislikes "replayability" but not "replay-value". bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting the discussion above, regarding citations: You may wish to check the MOS to see whether this is life-or-death, but it's my understanding that print mags are italicised, websites not (The Escapist is a debatable exception because while a website it stylises itself with italics; there may be a discussion confirming our practice re. it somewhere).
 * The problem is that the citation templates automatically italicize the "work" field regardless of whether he source is a website or magazine. SharkD   Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One reason I don't use the templates :) I think you need to enter websites under "publisher" rather than "work", or something. bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Templates :(  I recommend against them. Don't convert a completed article, but for a new article, they're best avoided. Dementia13 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I have fixed all these issues. SharkD   Talk  04:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On criteria 1b and c: I don't know a great deal about RPGs, but based on my familiarity with other genre articles, I think the length, detail, breadth and depth of content look good, as well as the structure. I plan to check some individual sources in the next day or two. That said, a couple of minor points:
 * In the first section there's a sentence listing roguelike games with no other information (see below) or sources.
 * Clicking on the links takes readers to the games' individual articles. Do I need to provide additional information if these articles already categorize the games as roguelikes? SharkD   Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd need secondary sources calling them roguelikes. But it's also pretty much the same issue as below. bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  04:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Diablo/action-RPG section there's another list, here of action-RPGs. These ones are sourced, but there's no other information on why they're worthy of note (it's not like an RPG is itself a rare thing by this point) and it thus feels pretty arbitrary and overly-detailed. bridies (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose these could be trimmed a bit. SharkD   Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  04:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting a copy edit, which will be thorough and may take a couple of days. I typically find phrases that I can't clean up because they're unclear, and I'll point these out on the article's talk page. Dementia13 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll start working on the above points once you're done. SharkD   Talk  20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It should be done by tomorrow, tonight if I'm feeling frisky. A number of the above issues will be, and some have already been, corrected by the copy edit. You'll find that the completed sections flow more smoothly, and are free of the informal and POV language that occasionally appeared. Dementia13 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

break 2 Belatedly noticed the copy edit is finished, so here's a start to the source check I promised (will read through to see how the copy edit went later):
 * "Ultima III is considered by many to have been the first modern CRPG." Source says: "Ultima III, a game that many CRPG enthusiasts cite as the first modern CRPG." ✅
 * Start of the Ultima and Wizardry section says: "The early Ultimatum, later called Ultima,[14] and Wizardry games may have been the most influential on later RPGs." Which is the cite for this? Is it the next cite which comes along, mid-sentence a couple of sentences later (next to a mention of Time Bandits)? Or one of the two cites at the end of that sentence, or what?
 * That got turned around during the copy edit. Ultima should really be mentioned first, as the title Ultimatum was only used while the game was in production. As for Ultima and Wizardry being the most influential, I do not recall. Barton says (speaking of Ultima), "What the genre really needed was a definitive game (or preferably a series) that would help garner momentum for the genre," and (speaking of Ultima and Wizardry), "Together, these two series helped define the genre.". Comments? SharkD  Talk  20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest something like: "Ultima and Wizardry are/were definitive games which began to popularise the genre". bridies (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Ultimatum was only used during production, then perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all. If no released game in that series bore that title, it's essentially trivia. Dementia13 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's trivia. SharkD   Talk  00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "popularity" is what Barton is talking about when he refers to the "momentum" of the genre. Rather, they helped "define" what we expect to see (feature-wise) in an RPG today. SharkD   Talk  00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Implemented the change, but rather than "popularise" I wrote "build", which should encompass both notions. bridies (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Golden Era section, the paragraph on Dungeon Master says: "It was also one of the first series to popularize the real-time, first-person viewpoint common in first-person shooters and more recent games such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion." The source notes the real-time system was unusual at the time, and it compares it to a first-person shooter; but as far as I can see it doesn't say explicitly that it helped popularise this view, in FPS games or otherwise (can't see any reference to Oblivion either).
 * Might want to change "popularize" to "feature" and "common" to "as seen in". Barton says (speaking about first-person versus overhead or isometric graphics), "Gamers were just as divided in 1988 over games like Pool of Radiance and Dungeon Master as they are about Neverwinter Nights 2 and The Elder Scrolls IV." SharkD   Talk  20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. SharkD   Talk  04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, missed the Elder Scrolls mention as it's above the main DM section. Semantics, but I think what the source is explicitly saying is that the first-person perspective was unusual for the time rather than it being one of the first to use this viewpoint. I've just changed this, hopefully not a big deal. ✅ bridies (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The end of the first paragraph on Indie games says: "Independent developers can be successful, if they deliver what large companies cannot.[81]" This is supported but I think it needs to be more detailed/explicit. The source certainly says: "Indie RPGs may never be able to compete head-to-head with big-budget RPGs in the mainstream commercial marketplace, but they don't have to if they can excel at giving gamers what the big RPGs can't." But in context that's right after: "I think the indie-RPG scene can fill in the "old school" RPG niche, where you won't be expected to have full VO, and hence have as much dialogue as you want; where you can have that 100-plus hours of gameplay; or where you don't need to pay for a bleeding-edge graphical engine to ensure maximum cinematic effect. You can still have fun without those things. For example, I tried out the Eschalon: Book 1 demo a while back and had fun with it. It had good exploration and world interactivity." There are at least one or two more examples in the source and I think you need the context/detail to understand what is meant by "if they deliver what large companies cannot". ✅ kindasorta
 * OK, I'll get on that. SharkD   Talk  22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just got done expanding that section. Hopefully it is what you wanted. SharkD   Talk  05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fine now, content-wise ✅ bridies (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Interplay, BioWare, and Black Isle" says: "Baldur's Gate (1998) provided an epic story with NPC followers and written dialogue that continued through both titles and two expansion packs,[4] and solidified BioWare's reputation as one of the premier designers of RPGs in the late 1990s and into the next decade. Black Isle produced an even more combat-oriented series, Icewind Dale, soon thereafter.[68]" Not sure where the cite for the second part of the first sentence is, as it does not appear to be covered by the cite at the end of the next one. The second sentence is supported: "Icewind Dale lets players create and control six characters, and since the game is so focused on combat, building a properly balanced party is of paramount importance." ✅ Though I might drop the word "even", as a side note. bridies (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that second bit has a source. SharkD   Talk  22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and just removed it. SharkD   Talk  04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK ✅ bridies (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

break 3
 * The end of the Ultima/Wizardry sections says: "Dragonstomper, also from 1982, was the earliest role-playing video game produced for a console, the Atari 2600." However the source says this is a contentious issue. It first says: "What was the first console RPG? Accounts vary, but most fingers point to Enix's Dragon Quest (Dragon Warrior in the US)" but then quotes fellow GameSpot journalist Joe Fielder opining Dragon Stomper is the first. And then it says: "A devoted gamer could make a decent case for either of these Atari titles founding the RPG genre; nevertheless, there's no denying that Dragon Quest was the primary catalyst for the Japanese console RPG industry". Whether or not these are RPGs being based on subjective analysis of gameplay elements (fantasy/medieval setting, random monsters, quest format), I think the article should note Fielding's point, but should mention and indeed give more weight to Dragon Quest as being far more influential and commonly cited as the first console RPG. bridies (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about these. User:Jagged 85 usually handles all the JRPG stuff. SharkD   Talk  23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now reads: Dragon Quest is most commonly claimed as the first role-playing video game produced for a console (the Atari 2600), though journalist Joe Fielder cites the earlier Dragonstomper bridies (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ after some tweaking. The statements regarding thematic consistency, "weirdness" and "embarrassing" characters mentioned above are supported (I note "embarrassing" has been ditched anyway): the source uses the word "weirdness" a number of times, talks of "silliness" and calls the "weird" cat-lizard-whatever-else "embarrassing". I still think there's a possible POV/prose issue with the loaded words though. The other possible issue is that the source takes a positive view of a lot of this "weirdness" as self-aware and interesting, even noting some of it has continued (in Fallout and Final Fantasy particularly). So I've taken the the liberty of rewriting it thus: "Video games became darker and more thematically consistent. Designers abandoned or reconciled some of the eccentric elements and pastiche of the 8-bit and 16-bit titles." bridies (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ ref 46. supports various points in the Decline section. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Statements re. "three Bs" and their different styles, at the end of the Bethesda section is supported by the ref. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of the article. It's supported, but is the best part of a decade out of date; is RPGDot reliable? It trumpeted the game as nearly ready and really good and that doesn't seemed to have been vindicated as accurate... bridies (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Penultimate sentence of the article. Not really seeing anything to support the words "notoriously", "vapourware" and "by many"; the questionable RPGDot again and a forum post, not ideal. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Again tightened this up with a prose teak, but the last couple of sentences in "Video game consoles and multi-platform titles" section, paragraph 4 is supported by the source, which talks of how the game changed the authors definition of "RPG", the definition in general, "genre tension", elements of other genres, and "Mass Effect's surprising popularity seems to say that RPGs aren't novels, they're movies now." BioWare as former "saviour" of the RPG is also supported. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Chipping in here: when I copy edited this article, I noted that the entire last paragraph was out of place. The final section has three paragraphs devoted to trends, and then it has this paragraph devoted to a single piece of vaporware (and despite protests to the contrary, it's vaporware until it gets released). That game would have to be awfully important to justify that paragraph, and I recommend that the entire paragraph be deleted. If the game gets released and becomes a classic, then it will be worthy of inclusion in the article. Dementia13 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove that section. I'm OK with it. SharkD   Talk  23:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

break 4 I'm doing a second, buff-and-polish copy edit. I'd hoped to finish it tonight but it'll probably be tomorrow. A couple of points on the prose:
 * I don't really get this sentence regarding Ultima's moral system: it "was subverted in later titles as unintended and unforeseen consequences became apparent in the surrounding world." It means it became more unpredictable? Or the consequences became ironic? Or just that it started to have tangible effects on the game world?
 * I don't recall either. I've ordered the book from my library. I should be getting it shortly. SharkD   Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-read that section of the book. Apparently, in Ultima VI the player Avatar wakes up in the underworld and doesn't understand how he got there or why. Later he finds out that his actions in the previous game were causing unexpected problems down below, and that the denizens of the underworld were suffering as a result. He spends the rest of the game trying to fix the problems in both worlds instead of just the one.
 * I went ahead and removed the remark from the text. SharkD   Talk  20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "[Might and Magic] is also notable for making race and gender an important aspect of gameplay." Maybe just a bit of context or clarification would be beneficial there. bridies (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Barton says, "For instance, one of the kingdoms in Might and Magic is stringently anti-male, and an all-male party will not be welcomed. Likewise, character alignment (i.e., good, neutral, or evil) plays a role in which locations the party can visit." SharkD   Talk  00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another sentence I don't quite grasp: A lack of technical standards among hardware manufacturers forced developers to support each manufacturer's implementation, or risk losing players. (Decline section)
 * The lack of common standards meant that hardware manufacturers came up with their own, individual solutions to technical problems instead of the same solution each time. Game and software developers were forced to accommodate each manufacturer's solution when developing a product. This was back in the day before plug-and-play. SharkD   Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fallout was nearly as influential on post-crash RPGs as Ultima was on Golden Age RPGs (Interplay, BioWare, and Black Isle section). What's the "crash" here? The 1990s decline? In which case I suggest rewording as "crash" seems to be a step up from "decline" and is possibly a bit confusing. bridies (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the decline. RPGs, simulations, and adventure games all experienced this crash at about the same time. SharkD   Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This following prose is too emotive and in the way it's presented as fact, appears biased: Like the movie industry, the indie video game scene plays a crucial role in formulating new ideas and concepts that mainstream publishers and marketing departments, stuck in their old ways, might otherwise deem unworkable or too radical.[86] And, history is filled with examples of movies that would never have passed muster among corporate decision makers, but ended up being huge hits and all-time favorites anyway.[86] (Last section). I don't have time to go through the source again but this needs more detached prose and/or more direct attribution (similar problem to previous examples discussed before). bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about something like, "According to a number of developers during a group interview..."? (Maybe needs to be reworded.) SharkD   Talk  00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the penultimate paragraph is pretty horrible, essentially a blizzard of blue linked titles with no real information. Similar to the roguelike and Diable-clone lists that were cut, but a paragraph in length. It says that some have called Eastern Europe "a hotbed of RPG development in recent years." Again I don't have time to check the source, but it's one IGN article. Suggest summarising which games have actually had some impact or importance with other sources. Or if there's not much then just expanding from and leaving it at whatever is said in the IGN article. bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the penultimate paragraph? SharkD   Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The middle paragraph in the Eastern European section. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support Fairly sizeable condition but I'm putting this here given SharkD's limited time (and mine, right now). I have done another copy edit of the article and FWIW I believe the prose to be of a professional standard. This excepts the handful of minor prose points and a couple of weightier content concerns listed above; of course the support is contingent on these being addressed. Aside from that I believe the length, breadth, detail, structure and general content to be up to the required standard. I'll abstain from commenting on images, FURS etc. as it's not my thing. The other condition regards the attribution and accurate representation of the sources. I've checked a dozen or so claims against their sources - which is about all I have the energy for - and some were fine and the problems raised have all been addressed. But given the significant proportion of checks that raised questions or needed things to be changed, I'd want to see another editor check some more statements against the sources - and for these to come up "clean" - before I could wholeheartedly support. bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * comments by Johnbod I should start by saying I know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have not entirely improved that by reading the article). The lead needs to be clearer as to what makes a role-playing video game. There are an awful lot of lists of games with little analysis (and I don't understand much of the analysis though technical ignorance), though I understand the difficulty of seeing the wood for the trees here.
 * Bibliograpy. If you are using refs like "Barton 2007a, p.37" you should start the bibliography entry by clearly showing this, for example using this style:
 * ""Barton 2007a": Barton, Matt (2007-02-23). "The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 1: The Early Years (1980–1983)". Gamasutra. UBM TechWeb. Retrieved 2010-09-05.
 * The bibliography should be in alphabetic order.
 * There are 3 published books on the subject but these are cited far less than online sources, which makes me uneasy. I haven't examined sources for reliabity, though Barton, easily the main source, I suppose can be considered reliable-ish. You link to the google page on his book, which has two reviews starting: "I can only recommend this book to people who have NEVER played an RPG (or ANY kind of video-game)and even then I'd just tell them to spend an afternoon on Wikipedia to get pretty much the same effect ... Read full review" and "Don't buy this book. It's not much of a history, but rather a tedious, exhaustive catalog written in a deeply annoying, self-absorbed fanboyish style. Literally every game ever gets a page, with....".  Hmmm.  King and Loguidice fare rather better, though I accept they may not be as squarely on topic.  I don't know how many other books are available on the subject.
 * Why are the titles of very early games not capitalized?
 * This is the history of an industry, or part of one, but there is very little financial or business information at all. I realize much information is never released, but it must be possible to do better than this; aren't volume figures released? Film articles generally now do this, though professional sports ones still tend to ignore such mundane issues too.
 * Having glanced at the "Eastern" equivalent, I can see splitting the subject was necessary, but is East/West an encyclopedic way to do it? Are the styles really that distinctive? I wouldn't know.
 * I'd like to be able to support, but after this long time at FAC already, I'm not sure this is going to happen, also noting bridie's comments above. If I knew more about the subject perhaps I would. An awful lot of work has gone in, but it's possible that GA is this article's natural level.
 * Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.