Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (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 SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010.

Sacrifice (video game)

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is still life in the games where you play as a wizard, collect incredibly powerful spells, build an army, and then go and sacrifice the bodies of your enemies to your god.

Perry failed to mention that the wizard, Eldred, was a refugee tyrant from a world ravaged by a demon he had summoned. Apart from sacrificing his enemies and using their souls as cannon fodder, Eldred also sacrifices his troops to banish other wizards! The game's graphic engine uses tessellation, and its results&mdash;along with crazy creature designs&mdash;wowed reviewers. Throw in five gods who comically bicker and plot among themselves (one of whom is a large anthromorphic earthworm), and you get a game that was praised by all and enjoyed huge profits from the sales! ... or did it? Read on and judge (the article had been peer reviewed twice, gotten A-class, and given a quick copyedit by Maralia). Nonetheless, here is a dithy to appeal for your FAC review... (sing to this tune in a Tim Curry voice, or if you prefer, Brad Garrett, both of whom voiced gods in this game) I worked my magic dearly to do my best There must be more to this game than R-T-S Why should we look for some other text Is this article not the best there is? Ain't no sense in not reviewing I'm gonna make it worth your ride Don't you know I won't give up until you've read Sacrifice Don't you know Why should I stop until you've read Sacrifice Awaiting your comments. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eldred? That sounds like one of those Gregorian mission people. :D  ceran  thor 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments --an odd name 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider the dab hatnote on top—people probably won't type "Sacrifice (video game)" to look for any other sense of the word. Otherwise, no dabs or dead external links.
 * Alt text looks good. Perhaps you can mention that the game screenshots take place under mostly cloudy skies.
 * Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.
 * An evil-looking character looking over a landscape...hmm...I swear I've seen that before...
 * Shame that there's no mention of cow launchings.
 * Right, the hatnote has been removed. Blame Interplay's box artist for any plagiarism of concepts (heh).  As for cows... I had taken a screenshot of James' Bovine Intervention spell, but the cow looked too small to be of any use (and critical commentaries of cow-tapults are lesser than the natural element spells).  Tis a shame...  Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. Thank you for the fast response. --an odd name 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Missed it, but I have added descriptions of the sky in the alt text. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments (c.1, 2, 3): Well, you certainly put effort into the nomination statement and edit summary, props for that :) It'll take me some time to get through the entire article (workin' over the holidays, yay!), but I have to re-register my opinion expressed at the peer review that the article does not meet WP:NFCC. File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg can be reduced in resolution, File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg could be cropped, resized or simply reshot, and I don't think the single opinion used in the reception section merits the level of commentary for File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg, especially since most graphic comments picked relate specifically to the creatures.


 * Aside from that, the sources look good and the more iffy ones have been properly defended at the Peer review, methinks. There are no gaps in coverage for what we would expect. One flyby comment that I touched upon in the peer review and want to stress again is the changes in tense (in some areas it's present, in others past). I suggest changing it all to past, this not only frees you from concerns about having to update syntax in the article in the future but also gives it a more historical framing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the tense issues, I was following WP:VG/GL where it implies unless a game never existed, it and its contents should be phrased in the present tense. Of course, I am amiable to changing this style if more grammar experts could weigh in (maybe we can possibly change the guideline if it is incorrect).  Of the Reception section, only the talk on gameplay is in present tense, the rest (commentators' opinions) are couched in the past.  If there are any glaring contradictions, I would appreciate anyone who points it out and I would quickly get on it.  Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the images, the peer reviews expressed a variety of opinions (agreeing they satisfy the NFCC and disagreements), so I would prefer a wider range of opinions to make a concensus. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Cites are good Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 2c needs a little bit of work differentiating between the work contained in and the publisher for some websites. I suspect Inside Mac Games is the name of a publication, rather than a publisher.  This is a polish issue though.   Dates are consistent in cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have differentiated the publisher and work for the Mac sources. I believe that polishes up 2c.  Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a thorough peer review which sorted out many issues. I am not a natural reader of videogame articles, but I am impressed by the clarity with which this article explains its subject-matter. There is a small residue of niggly points, none of which is worth withholding support for:-


 * Why the multiple citations? (e.g. at the end of the Graphics section, fourth line of Reception section)?
 * The recognition "by the industry" requires several sources to show that it is the industry (and not just one or two sites) that recognize the game. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer by Hieronymus Bosch if the Renaissance painter was its designer." I spent some time puzzling over this, not knowing that "Command and Conquer" refers to another strategy game. For clarity can I suggest "To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer as designed by the Renaissance painter Hieronymus Bosch."
 * I tweaked it a bit. How does it look?  Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine now Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the entirely ordinary phrase "a massive increase in blood pressure" deserves the status of a quote. It's a phrase anyone might say.
 * Quotation marks removed. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Another reason, offered by Gillen, for Sacrifice's commercial failure was the size of its development team." Should specify the small size, since this is I think the point being made.
 * Made explicit. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that "Legacy" is the most appropriate title for the last section. A legacy suggests something handed on or passed down; so far as I can see there was nothing passed on, apart from the game's pioneering of the mouse-gesture control system, hardly a "legacy". It's more a case of "consequences", "aftermath" or "repercussions".
 * Although "Legacy" might be pushing it, the three suggestions seem negative, and would make the game seem like some terrible natural disaster (not that Sacrifice evokes many positive thoughts, mind). When I read "aftermath" I think "hurricane death toll".  Maybe I should blame the media.  --an odd name 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnOddName about "aftermath"; it has been used too much with disasters such that there is a negative connotation in using it. I am amiable to changing the name of this sub-section (but to other suggestions), or removing the header and plonking the text into Reception, though.  Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think leaving it is the best option for the moment. Maybe in due course a better title will spring to mind, but it's not an issue as far as this FAC is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS: an aegrotat for the verses) Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, many thanks for that. Looks like I finally got a degree for song-writing (heh).  Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments What makes these reliable? RB88 (T) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.gog.com/en/editorial/editorial_sacrifice
 * Good Old Games is an online video games store. Although one might discount it for commercial interest here, its editorial is sourced for (1) plot information (which has no personal opinions or judgments injected, hence reliable) and (2) David Perry's statement of which specific fantasy genre his team avoided in designing the game's creatures (the source states this plainly, making it easy for anyone to verify Perry said that).  None of the statements are simply opinions and readily verifiable fact.  Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/31/the-making-of-sacrifice/
 * Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a website set up by Kieron Gillen, Jim Rossignol, Alec Meer and John Walker&mdash;all with long years of experience of writing for dead-tree video game publications and web-based established sites. This article refers to two articles written by Gillen, and the information is reliable based on his considered position of expertise knowledge of the video game industry and the subject.  Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/tfog.htm
 * This site is set up by Richard Bartle, co-author of the first multi-user dungeon (MUD). He is a highly recognised figure within the computer role-playing game industry as a pioneer.  He also has a PhD in artificial intelligences and is an active writer on the multi-player video game industry.  The page referred is his article on the state of video gaming, and information sourced is from the interview he conducted with David Perry.  The information is fact (technical details) and not an opinion or judgment; hence, reliable.  Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this: Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. We're going to need third-party sources to back up whether the sources can be considered reliable. RB88 (T) 11:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As already explained, Gillen is already an established expert in the industry with multiple articles published by third party sources (you can find them in his article or a casual search on Google). Bartle is an acknowledged expert too, with his Designing virtual worlds (as an example) a source for several other publications.  As for GOG, it is used with regards to WP:PRIMARY; the article is not interpreting the information it supplies, and I see no reason to dispute Perry's words as given.  Nevertheless, I have asked Ealdgyth to offer another viewpoint on these sources.  Jappalang (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the references need fixing per WP:DASH Ground  Z3R0   002  21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one reference that was using spaced em-dash; the others are using unspaced em-dashes. This has been corrected.  Does that resolve your concern?  Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good fixed. Ground  Z3R0   002  00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So unconventional were the designs that gaming journalist Michael Eilers remarked... wouldn't it be easier for you just to say "The designs were so unconventional that..." I'm all for creative writing, but simple english is just as effective here and improves the prose. Ground  Z3R0   002  00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the immense volume of reviews and thoughts in the reception section, I believe a VG Reviews box would benefit the article. This is going by the example set by other featured articles and the fact that such a thick amount of information would make it difficult for a reader to obtain simple review scores with such a format. Not a requirement, but strongly, strongly, recommended. Ground  Z3R0   002  02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to disagree here; it is not a requirement, but I also think it might not be of help here; I have outlined my reasons basically at Talk:Sacrifice (video game) when I started rewriting the article. In summary, each reviewer has a different standard for his or her numerical score (and is incongruent when brought up against each other).  Initially, I did not have a strong opinion for or against their inclusion, but am now favoring their exclusion (having read many dead-paper books that tend to exclude discussions of numerical scores when commenting on a game, and seeing numerous Wikipedia articles where the tables are stuffed with scores for various platforms and for "balance"), though not strongly.  For the discussions on the tables, refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 76 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 62 (the last thread has my pointers to older discussions too).  Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do believe it helps ease reader comprehension, but the section does that well as it is. The exclusion of this will not stop me from supporting the FAC when I have made more comments if there are issues I notice. Ground  Z3R0   002  03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: "No sales figures were released for Sacrifice, but the industry acknowledges the game did not sell well"--I'm not sure sourcing that to RPS and IMG exactly establishes it as "the industry". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not just RPS and IMG; the two following sentences expounding on this (James Bell's and Gillen's comments) also support the industry knowledge that the game failed to be a best seller. I figured that rather than tack them to the first general sentence (doubling the number of cites to it from 2 to 4), they would be more suitably attached to their detailed statments.  Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As Andy (below) also has doubts on this, I have refined "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry". Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further rejoinder: I have copyedited the article; I removed the unnecessary double-spaces between sentences, as the article was inconsistent about it, one way or another, and cut down of some redundancies and unnecessary phrases (there were one or two places I tweaked word choice, so I suggest checking and make sure I didn't misrepresent a source.) I also switched around some tenses. There are sections of the reception I did not change, because changing the tense from present to past would sound strange--the problem is that reviewers opinions of the game are essentially presented as fact, i.e. "Looking over the wizard from his back, the point of view focuses too close to the ground, preventing players from having a clear picture of their wizards' surroundings". These should be recast and optimally the whole critical reception section should be switched to past where appropriate, as you're describing reception that was, not is. I am leaning support, but the images are still a dealbraker for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have recasted the section a tad, and also added more to the spell effects on reviewers. I had initially discarded them because their comments were "less impressive" than the quotes by Bye, Gillen, and Edge; however, by adding them, I hope they further the impression of the graphics were not mostly on the creatures (it was quite balanced between the small creatures and the "gargantuan" spells).  This should help show the significance of the tornado image.  Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Images replaced per below. Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch - I have read this twice now and it seems to meet the FAC criteria - it is well-written, nicely illustrated with properly justified fair-use images, and the references seem fine to me too (though I am not an expert on games). I have a few quibbles, that do not detract from my support: Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awkward sentence Close proximity to a fountain of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well. I think it means something like Close proximity to one of several fountains of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well.
 * Would it make sense to add "computer" before platforms in Multiplayer matches cannot be played between different platforms.[30]
 * Missing word? ''Perry promoted the game by visiting professional game reviewers, such as FiringSquad, and giving copies of the beta [version?] to them.[34]
 * Thank you. Your suggestions make the article clearer to the general readers, so I have adopted them.  Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: After viciously scanning this article for little clicks and mistakes, I have come up with none. I have no complaints with this article and therefore I express my thorough support for this to pass its FAC. Ground  Z3R0   002  00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with comments - Good work on this one! A couple bothers buried near the end... no show-stoppers but I'd like to see them answered.
 * "has been one of PC Gamer's Top 100 Games for at least eight consecutive years." Why no precision? Is the number not known, or are you just trying to maintain currency without going back to update?
 * Sort of both (though "at least 8 years"&mdash;2001 (release) to 2009 (last known Top 100 announcement)&mdash; is verifiable by checking up the PC Gamer's Top 100 for each year and Gillen's remarks. The phrase also allows a lesser frequency of updates (The Top 100 is also supposedly going to shift to a reader-votes based system instead of through editorial decisions, so future Top 100 might not be "reliable"...).  Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "but the industry acknowledged the game did not sell well." Hmm. I'm not crazy about letting Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Inside Mac Games speak for "the industry", are you?
 * Oh well, coupled with David Fuch's earlier remarks, I changed "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry"; this should be qualified by Gillen's and Eiler's pieces, and the followup by Bell. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Great minds think alike, I guess David? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support A few Comments and questions for now—I know absolutely nothing about video games and apart from Space invaders, I have never played one so please forgive my ignorance: *Similarly, "turn-based" *I didn't like "various voice talents" and "was an evolution of" *Can something be done about "Solid"? Does it mean "robust" or successful?
 * I don't understand, "Each match starts the player's wizard with an altar."
 * Changed to "Each match starts the player with a wizard and an altar." Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is elaborated in the following sentence, but I see how it can confuse on the first read; I dropped the term, simplifying the clause to "which was released in 1985 for the ZX Spectrum computer." The following sentence is more than sufficient to explain the basic workings of that game.  Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume it is "voice talents" that is more of distaste? I changed it to "voice artists".  I dropped the phrase with "evolution" and went for the simpler "was developed from" instead.  Jappalang (talk)
 * The source states, "During the real-time strategy craze of the later '90s, publishers could just about guarantee that a solid real-time strategy would sell 100,000 units. On the other hand, a turn-based game needed to be marketed, promoted, and designed to perfection to crest that magical 100,000-unit mark."  It could mean a real-time strategy that is either "fun" or well-designed would be a best-seller; however, unsure of which definition it could be, I felt it safer to just quote the word instead.  Any help to resolve this would be appreciated if it is an obstacle to comprehension.  Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an obstacle.Graham Colm Talk 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

*This construction seems awkward; "They found that the game's interface, presenting a viewpoint that looked over the wizard from behind, hindered them from having a clear picture of their characters' surroundings." It looks a little like a camouflaged fused participle to me. How about a simple "which presented a viewpoint"? Perhaps even set off with a pair of emdashes?
 * Adopted your suggestions. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From a non-gamer's point of view, this is remarkably well-written and intelligible for a video game article (no offence meant David). I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 11:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support There was a mistake about the size of the gaming market which is now corrected. I remember this game well, it was one of the last i played all the way through. Article seems to capture all the essentials. Very well written! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers, if you haven't already, could you please mention your thoughts on the images that David mentioned at the beginning of the FAC? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on images: I think File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg is fine. If it were any smaller resolution, I wouldn't be able to see any details and it would be useless. I concur with David's suggestion that File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg should be cropped to show just a handful of creatures, if at all. I would advocate for removing File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg completely. As I was reading, I didn't think it added anything to my understanding and I wouldn't say it is exactly the subject of critical commentary in the article. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I give. I have called back the monsters and retrenched several of them (had to whip some spells out to ensure they leave), refilming the scene for the monster cast.  A new smaller-sized image, showing less creatures but zoomed in, is now in place.  The tornado image has been replaced by one of Hieronymus Bosch's sketch.  Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with the image tweaks I now feel this meets all criteria. An excellent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.