Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proteus (video game)/archive4

Proteus (video game)

 * Nominator(s): Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 exploration game Proteus. The game was central to debates around video games as art and contributed to discussions around whether walking simulators could be considered 'video games'. Well received and the recipient of many awards, I think it's high time this article became featured.

This is the fourth nomination, the previous FACs being closed either as a result of lack of interest or due to prose concerns. Since the last FAC the article has undergone fairly substantial copyediting, and I think it's time for a formal review again. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editors who participated in previous FACs (and are still active):. If you have time for a fresh review I'd super appreciate it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Blue Pumpkin Pie

 * The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception, it should be the first sentence above the commentary of the game, it may not be 100% necessary in the prose either, but that's not a negative. there are some fixes that need to be made, primarily from the Reception section. I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence. Although I do see an effort by organizing certain topics or common opinions onto their own paragraph. It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers unless they hold additional merit outside of the respected website/magazine that they are representing. Some reviews still have scores in the prose, those should be removed and be left in the VG reviews box. If these can be addressed, I might support it for featured.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Responses below:
 * The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception
 * The intention on scores being in the middle was to have it be chronological (the section even used to be separate by pre/post-release sub-headings). There were pre-release awards and previews, then the aggregated scores are for the full post-release reviews. If you think that's confusing then I can shuffle things around to be more standard. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence.
 * Could you point this out? I might be missing the sentence(s) you're referring to. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers
 * Reworded to remove all names except in the case of Jim Rossignol, who has his own article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some reviews still have scores in the prose
 * Fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the reception section again, it appears that the first two paragraphs are reception prior to the release of the game, while everything after is after or upon release. It can be confusing because the article doesn't clarify what the second paragraph is focused on. I read it as post-release information. It could be a good idea to separate it into post-release section and pre-release section to avoid confusion.


 * These are the sentences that i was talking about earlier.


 * Eurogamer, PC Gamer, and IGN all gave praise to the game's dynamic audio, commenting on how it accompanied them through the game, with IGN writing, "It's oddly captivating to just walk around and let [the sounds] wash over your surroundings".


 * It might be better to just state "Multiple reviewers gave praise to the dynamic audio." as an opening sentence for the paragraph and highlight any specific quotes from each reviewer, not just IGN. Unless somehow PC Gamer and Eurogamer have very similar and its too difficult to differentiate, then instead just separate IGN's statement.


 * GameSpot thought that the game had little replayability, and PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs.


 * Although their opinions are similar, this is trying to highlight each opinion separately in one sentence. If you want to make each statement distinct, then they should be separated.


 * Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies, and PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"


 * The same issue mentioned before.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made it clearer that the first paragraph refers to pre-release awards, and the second paragraph directly mentions 2011/2012, in addition to the IGN article being a preview. I've also hopefully now addressed the sentences flagged above. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You're asking the reader too much to know that the second paragraph is still related to pre-release reception. The average GA and FA video game article groups reception by accolades and reviews. The current method in the article is unheard of. The average reader will assume the first paragraph is about awards and not see the connection of pre-release. Adding "in 2011/2012" doesn't help either.
 * The reception section shouldn't have this much afterthought involved. It should be clear and not leave readers guessing on why you made the decisions you made. The easiest solution is adding a "pre-release" and "Post-release" section. Fewer changes that way. Or the more standard method: "Critics" and "Accolades". Having a non-standard method and expecting readers to understand it is out of the question.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After further review, GameFront is also not recognized as a credible reviewer in WP:VG/RS, so this could definitely impact the FA. If you want it to be reviewed, you should follow the procedure of WP:VG/RS talk page.


 * GameSpot noted that while some events and locations weren't guaranteed on each playthrough, they found that later seasons of the game began to feel familiar. PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs. GameTrailers reviewer thought that the randomly generated islands provided an opportunity to see things players may have missed the first time. Similarly, IGN's reviewer found himself replaying the game many times.


 * In this paragraph, it is not clear why its considered mix reception. there is no proper flow and doesn't elaborate on their opinions very well. Did GameSpot find that as a negative or a positive? How about PC Gamer's opinion? IGN replaying the game many times doesn't add to the reception. It could imply that IGN enjoyed it, but again, its best to be clear and not leave it to the imagination of the readers. I read the reviews so I know there's room to elaborate.


 * Pocket Gamer gave a positive review, praising the extra features present in the Vita version, while noting it had some performance issues. Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies. PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"


 * Once again, elaborate on the reviews and be specific on what they focused on is important for a good reception section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blue Pumpkin Pie - I've attempted to address all your concerns, shuffling and expanding much of the reception section. Let me know what you think. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so far this appears worthy to be a featured article. i also support.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47
Great work with the article. Above are some suggestions that I have for the article after doing a brief read-through. I will sit down and do a more thorough look through the article in the future. I have very fond memories of this particular game after watching a YouTuber's ASMR videos with it. It definitely helped me in a not so great period of my life. I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think the semi-colon is appropriate for this part "Key first conceived Proteus as an open-ended role-playing game akin to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion;" because the following part is still part of the same sentence.
 * Removed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a comment about this part " The game was involved in numerous discussions of video games as art, with some debating whether it could be considered a video game at all.". I have been told in the past to avoid "with..." sentence constructions like this. I personally do not have an issue with it, but I thought it was worth discussion.
 * I do not think the references in the infobox are needed, as the release dates should be mentioned and cited in the body of the article as well.
 * Removed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if both screenshots are necessary. I do not think the positioning of the second screenshot in the "Development" section makes much sense as the visual changes are not discussed there. I have been told in the past to keep non-free media usage to a minimal so I think only one screenshot is necessary.
 * The images are freely licensed, so we shouldn't be concerned about minimal usage. I think it's worth having both images because a central part of the game is the changing seasons. I'm not sure of best practice on image positions, the current positioning was primarily a way of spacing them out. Happy to shift the 2nd around. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. I should have clicked on the images before I made this comment. Since they are both freely licensed, then I think it makes sense to include both of them. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would link "role-playing game" in the lead.
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this part "Both during development and after the game's release the developers expressed interest in allowing player-created mods of the game", should there be a comma after "the game's release"?
 * Shuffled this sentence a bit. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this part "Proteus was released on 30 January 2013 for Windows and OS X", I would wikilink "Windows" and "OS X".
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this part "and on 8 April of the same year for Linux", I would wikilink "Linux".
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this part "whose team added new gameplay features to the Vita edition at Sony's behest", I think it would be better to say "at Sony's request". The word "behest" makes me think more of an order or a command, but the article says that Sony requested for additional features and allowed the developmental team to create them on their own terms.
 * Sure, done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this part "Some called it an anti-game, a description which was controversial.", I would consider bundling the citations together. Since the citations are only used for this sentence, it would not cause any issues with the rest of the article, and it would avoid any concerns with Citation overkill, which is usually raised with the use of four or more citations for a single sentence.
 * Huh, you learn something new every day. Hadn't considered bundling citations. While I like the idea, per the help page - "If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references". If we did this it would result in duplicating citations in the References section. Do you think that trade-off is worthwhile? Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see the references, in this case Reference 47 through 50, being used elsewhere so I do not think it would cause any issue. Could you point out where one of the references is re-used elsewhere in the text as I seem to be overlooking it? Bundling the sources is not entirely necessary. I thought it might be an interesting point to raise as part of the review. It is not a requirement, but I was just curious about your thoughts on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're totally right, I saw they were named refs and assumed they were used elsewhere. Anyway, I've shuffled the cites around (and added one) so that they more closely match the information, and now we don't have 4 in one place, so I feel fine with how things stand. Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be my final comment before I support this for promotion. Thank you for your patience. The following book (1) includes a discussion on Proteus in its preface and some of its chapter. If you search for the game's name on the Google Books link, then you should be able to find and read all of the relevant sections. I was wondering if this source would be helpful to the article? The book talks more about the debate of whether this should be considered a true video game or not and delves further into some of its mechanics, like the music portions. I do not believe this source is used in the article (major apologies if I somehow I missed it) so I thought it was worth asking about in this discussion. Ian Bogost also discusses the game in the following book (2), and I think it may be helpful for the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links, I'd totally missed them. I think everything the first book describes is already included and cited. The 2nd is more interesting to me, though I struggled to figure out how best to incorporate it. I gave it a go in this edit. Thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. The wording could use a little more work, primarily the two verb+ing phrasing. Maybe something like "Ian Bogost proposed that Proteus was intentionally unconventional, arguing that it is "a game about being an island instead of a game about being on one"."? Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think two points from the first source may be helpful to the article. On page 322, it mentions the "gravestones" and "idols" on the island. I think adding a brief part about that would add some necessary context to what is meant by "memorial" in the first screenshot. The same page also mentions how the island is 3D, but all of the objects are represented in 2D. I think that is also a relevant point to incorporate. The same page also talks about "8-bit wisps" coming out during the nighttime portions of the game, but that may be too minor for inclusion. Just thought that may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorporated your suggestions in this edit. The wisps were mentioned in an earlier version of this article, but as you suggest, were removed because they were hard to explain and relatively minor in the grand scheme of the game. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing both points. I will look through the article one last time when I get the chance just in case I missed anything, but everything looks good to me. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look now...


 *  ....although some [responded negatively to] the game's brevity and limited replayability. - bracketed bit seems a bit cumbersome....why not just, "criticised" or "complained about"?


 * is it cited as an influence by anyone else? (given we're now 8 years down the track....)

Otherwise looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated the lead per the first point. The closest I came to seeing it cited as an influence is this, but that's more by the author than the developers. Sam Walton (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damien Linnane
I supported at the last FAC, and the article has only improved since then. One question that does not affect my support though: is the hyphen placement correct at "location- and date-specific"? I'm honestly not sure; it just looks odd to me. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is correct - see Hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review (passed)

 * Names of works are not consistently wikilinked when they have articles (fn 2, fn 12, for example)
 * Did a pass on this, pretty sure each work is now consistently wikilinked. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Fn 7, I'm curious about why you're citing what appears to be a high school or college textbook for gameplay basics. Checking the source, they appear to cite an essay of sorts by Daniel Golding for their description of the game. That essay appears to be in a reliable source, but an essay itself isn't a good source for gameplay.
 * From what I can see, that source is an academic essay written by two academics and included in an academic text:, . The Daniel Golding source doesn't include the information Fn 7 is citing. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my interpretation. It looks like they are attempting to cite Golding. I understand it's an academic essay but what makes them qualified to write about video gameplay? It's not a peer-reviewed publication, nor is it in a game-related journal. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright - I swapped out the citation for the 2D graphics information, and took out the gravestones/idols sentence for lack of another citation. Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Fn 22, fails verification. The date of a tweet saying something is "now available to buy online" isn't a good source for when something "shipped" which is what your text reads.
 * Adjusted the wording here for accuracy. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Shacknews seems to have an incorrect publisher.
 * Ah yes, that changed since we first cited them here. Fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Publishers are not needed when the publisher name is basically the same as the name of the work. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming you were referring to The Guardian, this is done. Thanks for the review ! Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review (passed)

 * File:Proteus logo.png is used appropriately in the article and has good ALT text. In the FUR box, the "Author or copyright owner" is empty though so that should be addressed.
 * This is unclear but I added Twisted Tree Games who would appear the most obvious copyright owner. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything seems correct with File:Memorial in Proteus.png and File:Autumn in Proteus.png. The links back to the original source works and there seems to be the correct permission for it to be used on Wikipedia.
 * Would it be more beneficial to switch the screenshots? The seasons/time change is more discussed in the "Gameplay" section so the second screenshot seems to fit there more. And the first screenshot is focused on the exploration/interaction aspects, which is discussed in the "Development" section, and it includes images of trees which is already discussed in this part (with the impressionistic tree design being one of the first he settled on). It seems like it would be more at home at the top of this section. This is just a suggestion though so I understand if you prefer the current order.
 * I'm open to discussion on this. I placed them this way around because it seemed more natural to see Spring before Autumn, given the game moves through the seasons, but perhaps that's too 'artistic' of a reason :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The current image placement works for me. I was just brainstorming different approaches for them, but I can understand placing the seasons in more of a chronological order based on their appearance in the game. I think a GIF would be helpful to better showcase the exploration focus of the game, but I will leave that matter up to you. I have no experience making or uploading GIFs on Wikipedia so I cannot be much help there (apologies for that), but I know that it has been done before. Right now, this passes my image review, but please ping me if you do decide to add a GIF just so I can update my review accordingly. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * i personally prefer a gif because the screenshot makes it look like a 2D game instead of a fully explorable 2D game. is it possible to a short create a gif for all seasons?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Theoretically possible, but would it be valid under WP:NFCC given that we have a range of freely licensed images available? I'm not familiar with the intricacies. Sam Walton (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it counts as a single piece of content. I've seen gifs used in the passed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I haven't found time to look into creating a gif yet. In the meantime, do you have any further sourcing concerns? Sam Walton (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All good here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think a gif is absolutely necessary so it still passes my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to make time to look into the gif idea but frankly it might be beyond my technical capabilities to put together one that's suitable. Sam Walton (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is understandable. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the article so I would not worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)