Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment/archive1

Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment

 * Nominator(s):  The Night Watch     (talk)   23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second of three downloadable content expansions for Shovel Knight. If you have participated in the video gaming scene since 2014 onwards, you may have heard of Shovel Knight or witnessed his many cameo appearances ranging from independent titles like Katana Zero, to behemoth blockbuster games such as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. I can affirm that Shovel Knight deserves some of this attention; It has pitch-perfect platforming and is a source of pure nostalgia. Truly the complete package for retrogamers. Specter of Torment would be like the Ninja Gaiden to Shovel Knight's Mega Man, and is an easier but nonetheless fun experience. Inspired by the work done on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, let's see if I can make a Four Award out of this article. The Night Watch    (talk)   23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Quid pro quo. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Image review: Easy pass. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Source review: All sources reliable. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Spot-check - pass
 * [1]: Errors detected. All other instances good.
 * This article does not mention the Darkness meter.
 * Replaced with USgamer


 * At no point does the article use the words "replicated" or "excellent", which is itself non-neutral.
 * Included in the beginning of the third to last paragraph.


 * [2]: Ditto.
 * Neither this nor [1] mention that Specter of Torment is a side-scroller.
 * Replaced with other source


 * Neither this nor [1] mention that killing enemies fills the Darkness meter.
 * Replaced with USgamer source


 * The article uses "scope", not "scale".
 * Changed


 * [3]: All good here.
 * [4]: Error detected. All other instances good.
 * Article notes that the platforming may be hard to learn, but does not call it "inferior" to Shovel Knight.
 * In the third paragraph of the "Phantom Menace" section, the author says that he prefers the original's style of platforming to Specter of Torment's.


 * [5]: All good here.
 * [6]: Ditto.
 * [7]: Ditto.
 * [8]: Ditto.
 * [9]: Ditto.
 * [10]: Ditto.
 * [11]: Ditto.
 * [12]: Ditto.
 * [13]: Ditto.
 * [14]: Ditto.
 * [15]: Ditto.
 * [16]: Ditto.
 * [17]: Ditto.
 * [18]: All good here but you should disclose that this is written in Polish.
 * [19]: All good here.
 * [20]: Ditto.
 * [21]: Ditto.
 * [22]: Ditto.
 * [23]: Ditto.

All matters addressed. I am pleased to support now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * "his master, the Enchantress" - presumably the Enchantress is female? In which case she is his mistress, not his master
 * Screen shot caption needs a full stop
 * "permits him to temporarily float while mid-air" => "permits him to temporarily float while in mid-air"
 * "memories of his former life: Before dying" - not a new sentence so no need for capital B
 * "causing the floor beneath them to collapse and killing Luan" => "causing the floor beneath them to collapse, killing Luan"
 * "back in 2013" - just "in 2013" is fine
 * "Among the stretch goals were the addition" => "Among the stretch goals was the addition" (addition is a singular noun)
 * "whether the player would move in upward or downward" => "whether the player would move upward or downward"
 * "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than as new abilities" => "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than new abilities"
 * "and designed many of these rooms" => "and designed many of the rooms"
 * "what possible movements that the player would take" => "what possible movements the player would take"
 * "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formula" - should be either "The team planned and designed the rooms using a cyclical formula" or "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formulae", depending whether more than one formula was involved
 * "but said that other were too similar" => "but said that others were too similar"
 * That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you again @ChrisTheDude I believe that I have addressed your comments!  The Night Watch     (talk)   00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Elias
Trying to expand my reviewing purview by looking at video game FACs. There is a first-timer whom I am helping and who has their own video game FAC here, so a go at it would be appreciated. of course the "qpq not obligated" caveat applies as always :) will be back with comments ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Misc


 * Tighten the prose by cutting words from the following.
 * "of" from "jump off of them"
 * Some instances of this remain
 * "began" from "began development of" -> using "began ... of" is redundant semantically, so do "developed Specter..." instead
 * "decided to" from "decided to completely overhaul" and "they decided to redesign all of them" -> same logic as above
 * "reviewers" from "though some reviewers"
 * "the original" from "As with the original Shovel Knight, players can..."
 * if Curios are similar to Relics in that both are powered with darkness, cut "and are" from "and are powered using a resource.." this also fixes the ambiguity
 * Yet to be addressed
 * The Relics are not powered using darkness, so I kept as-is}
 * That clears things up. thanks! - e.
 * "in" from "while in mid-air"
 * Yet to be addressed
 * Rewrite to "Green Skull for regaining health, Judgment Rush for teleporting through walls, and Hover Plume for temporarily floating while mid-air".
 * The comma from "Ocarina of Time, and Ninja Gaiden Black"
 * comma + second "were" from "were recreated as Curios, and were designed"
 * change "intended for a consistent..." to "wanted a consistent..."
 * "back" from "reverted back to"
 * "all" from "all the gameplay concepts"
 * "to be" from "found the platforming to be challenging", "found the levels to be similar", "found the new levels to be familiar", "the bosses to be easier than in...", and "found the game to be too short"
 * the "found..." phrase structure appears pretty close to each other, so vary it a bit
 * "[comma] and" from "felt that the platforming [...], and felt overall inferior"
 * The relevant sentence still needs some tweaking. see below
 * "into" from "helped make Specter Knight into a complex character"
 * "noting from "it was the best story in the series and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games had improved its writing, despite noting its short length"
 * move the "short length" bit to after the "best story" bit; right now it seems like the "short length" descriptor is referring to YCG's improved writing
 * MOS:CONFORMTITLE tells us video game titles and publication names should be italicized in the |title parameter of references

Gameplay Plot Development Reception
 * "Specter Knight features a different moveset than the Shovel Knight character focused on mobility: he can run up walls, jump off of them, and attack enemies with his scythe." this wording is ambiguous. clarify that the character who runs up walls etc. etc. is the spectre knight by rewriting it to "and focuses more on mobility"
 * readers would better understand the "shovel knight character" is from the previous game if it were written to "''Shovel Knight protagonist"
 * this one's good
 * change "an inventory similar to the original Shovel Knight" to "...similar to the original Shovel Knight's" because you are comparing it to the game's inventory, not the game itself
 * any reason why treasure in "treasure, shortcuts, and rewards" is singular unlike the other items on the list ?
 * Add a comma after 2016 per MOS:DATEFORMAT
 * "...purchased the original game. The game..." there's ambiguity. change "the game" to "Specter of Torment"
 * "saying" is grammatically parallel to "highlighting", so remove the comma before "and saying". the current sentence structure stands as "found the platforming challenging [...] and saying" which implies "found" and "saying" are parallel verbs, which they are not
 * "The reviewer said that the game was another entry in a great franchise" whos the reviewer exactly ?

All I got for now. the article is very, very well-written! most of my issues involve concision, which should be pretty easy to address. hope my comments were of help. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you Your Power! I believe that I have addressed your comments.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Your Power just a nudge :).  The Night Watch     (talk)   21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not attending to this sooner @The Night Watch! i wrote on my talk page earlier that I had big events happening at my school last weekend, so my editing capacities were limited. now that i am back, allow me to do another sweep That will be all! Thank you so much for your diligence with writing the article, whose prose was just as clean and well-written as when I last read it :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 03:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * there is still one instance of "jump off of" in the article
 * perhaps pipe the entire phrase "jump off them" to Wall jump instead of just "jump" to avoid an WP:EASTEREGG situation
 * some "original Shovel Knight" -s can be simplified to just "original game" or "Shovel Knight", where doing so would not create ambiguity
 * compare w/, where i think the phrasing is necessary to disambiguate, vs , where "the original" can be cut just fine
 * I initially had no idea what stretch goal meant, so a link to it would be helpful
 * There sadly isn't a good wikilink, but I gave a brief explanation they are "additional features for the game to be added if the funding met a certain target"
 * There is one at stretch goals; kudos as well for providing a brief explanation. Weirdly enough, linking stretch goal (singular) redirects to Goal setting, which does provide helpful explanation, but linking stretch goals (plural) redirects to the Kickstarter article, which is a more relevant article but provides zero mention of the term anywhere. Pick your poison - e.
 * I'll do the second one, thanks.
 * "whichfeatured a character with unique movement" self-explanatory
 * as a casual player of video games, i'm more familiar with "platforms" being used to refer to PC, Nintendo, X/S, PS5, etc., so can we pipe "ports" to Video game?
 * "GameRevolution felt that the platforming was difficult to understand [...], and felt overall inferior" GameRevolution was not the thing that felt inferior, no ? change to "felt that the platforming was difficult ... and was overall inferior"
 * A similar ambiguity situation with the Destructoid sentence. "Destructoid said that [Specter of Torment] was the best story in the series despite its short length, and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games" add a comma before "despite" to disambiguate that it was Specter of Torment and not Destructoid that did the demonstrating


 * Thank you again @Your Power, I believe that I have addressed everything.  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for the unstriked comments, it's good practice to have explanations for why some requests weren't addressed. almost there, @The Night Watch. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#386013;color:white;">‍  Elias 🪐 </b> (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems we have only one more left, @The Night Watch. inching so close to promotion! you got this! <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#386013;color:white;">‍ Elias 🪐 </b> (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Night Watch there we go. apologies for procrastinating this, and thanks for reviewing the House of Ashes nom! while I personally feel comfortable with the prose in terms of grammar and flow, I understand the issues raised by MC and GtM below. hence, I am a bit reluctant to support at the moment. when all of the below are resolved, I would be happy to lend it <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#386013;color:white;">‍ Elias 🪐 </b> (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

 * "They completely overhauled the levels of the original Shovel Knight" I can't tell from this whether the new levels are in some sense the same as, or similar to, the old levels, but with a redesign?  Or that the new levels are completely new designs?  The gameplay section doesn't make it clear either, but from the development section I gather the former is the case.  I don't think you need to put all that detail in the gameplay section, but as written it's ambiguous.
 * I tried clarifying that they are similar. Does this iteration work


 * "and reduced the difficulty after receiving criticism regarding it in Plague of Shadows": as written this means they made it easier than the original Shovel Knight, but I think you mean they made it easier than Plague of Shadows.
 * Removed


 * "The team followed a formula for level design based upon Mega Man to avoid disrupting the pacing": I don't know what you mean by "avoid disrupting the pacing". The same phrase is used in the body with more explanation but I don't follow it there either.
 * Should I insert a wikilink to pacing to help clarify?
 * No, the issue is that I don't see how choosing a level design formula based on Mega Man has an effect on the pacing of the game. Things that disrupt pacing are typically things that slow the player down more than expected.  Why would the level design formula's similarity to Mega Man have that effect? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Decided to cut that part about pacing and just said that they followed a formula from Mega Man.
 * Suggest adding "moveset" to Glossary of video game terms and linking it.
 * Not in the Glossary to my knowledge, may be a good entry
 * I know it's not really your problem, but could you add it to the glossary? You could probably write a more accurate definition than I could, and it would allow us to link it here -- it's jargon to non-players and a link would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but must travel through longer portions of the level to progress if they die": how about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but if they do, they must travel further through the level to reach the next checkpoint in order to save their progress if they die".
 * The checkpoint does not save their progress, it just allows them to respawn in a later portion of the level if they die
 * Understood, but I don't think the sentence you have makes that clear. I think a reader familiar with video games would understand it with no difficulty, but it could be phrased more clearly.  Isn't the key point that once you've passed a checkpoint, you'll respawn there if you die?  So the cost of destroying a checkpoint is that the player must now reach the next checkpoint in order to move their respawn point further along in the game.  How about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but will not then respawn there if they die before reaching the next checkpoint"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * In the plot section, I think just a sentence or two about the plot of Shovel Knight would help set the stage. From the later discussion in the "Development" section, it appears Specter Knight is a boss in the original Shovel Knight; I think that should be mentioned as well.
 * The problem is I don't actually know how to explain it very well in a couple of sentences, maybe a "see also" to the Shovel Knight plot may help.  I was mostly basing the self-contained nature of the plot on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den which sends the reader towards the original article for context without filling up the plot section too much.
 * I think something is needed. As it stands the first reference to Shield Knight doesn't make it clear he was part of the first game.  I agree it's not easy to do because this game is a prequel -- normally one summarizes previous episodes to set the stage. But players of this game will generally understand references to Shovel Knight and its plot, so readers who did not play either game need to get a basic idea of the relationship between the plots. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a little more.


 * "which grows in power as he defeats the knights": we haven't yet said he has to fight them, only that he has to recruit them.
 * Changed
 * My concern here is that "recruit" is not necessarily a hostile interaction, so the reader doesn't realize that Specter Knight is going to recruit these knights by defeating them. How about "instructs her undead servant Specter Knight to fight eight knights in order to recruit them for the Order ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * "Oblivious to the identity of the Enchantress": does this mean Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight? Or that he doesn't realize the Enchantress is evil?  From the later plot section I see it's the former but I think that should be clear here.
 * Not sure if being evil can be considered an identity, I think it is fine as-is but yes Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight.
 * I'll have a think about other ways to phrase this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "Unaware that the Enchantress was Shield Knight, Donovan accepted the offer ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is Specter Knight enraged when he discovers the Enchantress was Shield Knight?
 * Changed to "Enraged that he was working for his enemy"
 * "Specter Knight goes after the Enchantress through the hole that Black Knight dug into the tower": but surely this hole takes Specter Knight out of the tower, since Black Knight broke in through it? Isn't the Enchantress inside the Tower somewhere?
 * Changed.


 * "The developers designed Specter Knight's mobility after receiving feedback on the movement of Plague Knight, the protagonist of Plague of Shadows. Players complained that Plague Knight's moveset was chaotic and difficult to control, leading Yacht Club Games to design the new protagonist with simpler controls and mechanics. The team deviated from Specter Knight's original flying movement as featured in his boss battle, believing that it would detract from the platforming." This is a bit back-and-forth -- we start with design, then go back to the complaints, then talk about the design again, then go back to the boss battle (presumably in the original game?).  How about "Players of Plague of Shadows had complained that the movement of its protagonist, Plague Knight, was chaotic and difficult to control, so Yacht Club Games simplified the controls and mechanics for Specter Knight.  The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming."
 * Done


 * "The spacing of levels was a constant concern, as the developers did not always know what possible movements the player would take during platforming": what does "spacing of levels" mean? I have never played platform games so this might be standard terminology.  Why didn't the developers know what the possible movements were?  Do you just mean they couldn't predict what a player would do?  Why would that affect the spacing?
 * Clarified as the spacing and layout of the level mechanics


 * "The developers considered Plague of Shadows and the original Shovel Knight too indistinct visually": I don't think you can use "indistinct" in this way. How about "too similar visually"?
 * Done


 * "The difficulty had to be altered to fit the new hub world": this seems like a non sequitur. Why would the developers have to change the difficulty of the game just because the layout was now a hubworld rather than a large map?
 * Explained. Does this work?
 * That's clearer, yes; I copyedited it a bit -- I hope I didn't screw up the intended meaning. I'm still not entirely clear what is being said, though.  I can see that in a game where you're forced through the levels in a certain order, the developers simply have to make sure the difficulty is gradually increasing.  If you have a hub and can go anywhere, why can't you have the same range of difficulties?  I've certainly played free movement games (Breath of the Wild comes to mind) where I had to learn fairly quickly that parts of the map needed to stay off limits till I acquired more skills and weapons.  What exactly was the problem they foresaw if they didn't even up the difficulty levels? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works, thank you. Apparently the developers evened out the difficulty across all of the stages to subvert expectations for the difficulty of each level (some stages were expected to be easy like in the first two games, though the developers decided to make them harder) and make gameplay more interesting. Should I add something along these lines?
 * "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after receiving criticism for it in Plague of Shadows": suggest "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after Plague of Shadows was criticized for being too difficult".
 * Removed that section earlier Done


 * Specter of Torment was first announced on ..." we're still in the "Level design" subsection here; you might add a subsection at this point titled "Release" for the remaining couple of sentences. Or make it "Release and reception" and add those sentences to the start of what's currently the reception section.
 * Moved


 * "Specter Knight would have to input several moves together to progress": I think this should be "put", not "input"?
 * Input is the the correct term, it is very common video game speak for "perform" or "do"

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mike Christie! I'll be addressing your comments sometime tomorrow or on Tuesday  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie I believe that I have addressed most of your comments.  The Night Watch     (talk)   15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've struck or replied to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie Did a second pass.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've struck a couple more points. I will read through again and think about the remaining points and see if have any more concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I've been hesitating over this review for a while. I think the prose could use a copyedit, but if that were the only issue I'm not sure I would oppose. I'm more concerned about some slight imprecisions in the way the source material has been used. For example, "Because players could use the hub to access all of the available levels, unlike the previous two games where the stages could only be completed in a certain order, the team was forced to redesign the easier levels of Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows to be more difficult, while reducing the challenge of the harder stages." The source for this says "Since Specter of Torment allows you to choose the main levels in any order, some of the more difficult stages in Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows were tailored to be a bit easier, while easier ones were amped up to be more challenging. This was a fun way to subvert returning players' expectations. Traditionally "easy" stages like Pridemoor Keep gained a harder edge in Specter of Torment." The problem here is "forced": the source describes it as an idea the team had, not something that they felt obliged to do. Another example: "The team used a level design formula taken from Mega Man, where a complete stage would feature 26 rooms and 6 secret areas, allowing players to recognize how far they had progressed." The source has "Each level should have about 26 regular rooms and 6 secret optional rooms. This formula was counted roughly from Mega Man (which has 25 rooms) for Shovel of Hope, and used again in Specter of Torment. A consistent length means that every stage will take a similar amount of time and have a similarly digestible amount of content. Any longer or shorter and the level might drag on or feel like it was missing stuff. Players start to develop a sense of their progress, and rely on it too ("I bet I'm near the end")." The source makes it clear these numbers are approximate, and that the approach was used for both the original game and this one, and explains why this is helpful for the players. An earlier version of this article mentioned pacing at this point; when I asked what that meant (before I read the source) the nominator took out the reference, but I think it's the point of the source, and an explanation was needed. Another example: "The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming." The source has "Even at the earliest of planning stages, we knew right away that Specter Knight couldn’t just have mobility like his boss battle from Shovel Knight. Floating around freely with a giant scythe doesn’t lend itself to platforming!" This is more of a nitpick, but though I've never played platforming games it seems we don't need to hedge with "believed" -- a free floating protagonist is incompatible with a platforming game. One more example: "They felt that ... players could be challenged if all the mechanics were combined at the end of the level." The source has "Shovel Knight levels share the same general structure for ramping ideas as classic Mega Man levels. Both typically introduce an idea, complicate it, layer it with other ideas, test the player with a really difficult version of the idea, and then cool down from the idea before starting the next idea. And at the end of the level, right before the boss, all the ideas combine for one really tough challenge!" The source says that this was a design approach in which the mechanics were introduced and then combined at the end of the level for a difficult challenge. The wording in the article is vaguer, and doesn't make it clear that this was a conscious strategy on the part of the designers in order to finish each level at a high difficulty. And it's not clear to me that "idea" and "mechanics" can be treated as synonyms in this way -- though I'd defer to a gamer's judgement on whether that's the natural interpretation for someone who knows these games. I'm sorry to oppose, since I think there's a solid basis for a featured article here, but I've found too many of these minor imprecisions to be comfortable with supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the minor imprecisions are a byproduct of how tough it is to craft a Development section using almost exclusively interview sources, but I'll go parsing through the sources to make sure they are as precise as possible.  The Night Watch     (talk)   14:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of Development looks fine to me, source 8 is used accurately.
 * Second paragraph of Development "Development of Specter of Torment began after..." Bit that it began after Plague of Shadows is correct, "ambitious expansion" is also correct, added a little more on how they believed that the movement in Plague of Shadows made the levels fun to revisit, but that the levels would feel repetitive on a third play through even if they changed the movement.
 * Third paragraph of Development "darker story centered around Specter Knight" looks correct, the material about Plague Knight being chaotic is elaborated upon in source 10 and the second paragraph effectively says that the team received criticism from some players who found Plague Knight too chaotic. I removed the bit about it being difficult to control as it is not explicitly stated in the sources, just that the movement was chaotic. I implemented your suggestion about the flying movement.
 * Fourth paragraph: They did indeed take inspiration from games like Prince of Persia and the other two games for how they designed the platforming and slashing movement. There were ways in which they implemented these inspirations in Specter of Torment, and these ways are not mentioned in the article because I believe that elaborating on exactly how they added these inspirations would be too long and excessively detailed. As such, I believe that it is fine as-is simply to say they took inspiration from these games. I slightly altered the bit about the ninja to clarify that the developers wanted him to act like a "grim reaper ninja", and that they included shrikens in his moveset at one point. I also clarified that the difficulties with the slashing movement was not difficulties with designing the movement, but rather communicating how it worked with players and teaching them how to use it.
 * I think the hard part is that many of the terms in the Development sources are unfamiliar to people who have not played the game, so it is a difficult balancing act simplifying what they are trying to say while also making the prose precise enough to what the sources are saying. @Mike Christie Let's start with these first four parts and see if I am doing this correctly. If not, I think I might withdraw and work on this outside of FAC.  The Night Watch     (talk)   15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A little further: For the fifth paragraph, first sentence is correct, source says that it took them a year to design, test, and balance each of the levels. Second sentence has been clarified to be a bit closer to the source, tell me if I need to rephrase it somewhat. Third and fourth sources are clarified as approximate. Fifth sentence has been altered to be a bit less vague, sixth and seventh sentences has been rephrased somewhat.
 * The Night Watch    (talk)   02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A brief input Gog the Mild
Seeing Mikes comments, I thought I would have a look myself. I have only read the first paragraph of the lead. Sorry, The Night Watch, but this doesn't seem to do what the first paragraph of a lead is supposed to. I can sympathise with Mike's dilemma, which seems to be that you clearly know what you are writing about, but the article is not pitched at a level understandable by a non-specialist audience. It is possible that the curse of knowledge applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "a downloadable content (DLC) expansion" - I think I know what that is.
 * "the 2014 platform game". Whoosh. Is it a video game? I assume not as you don't say so. So what is it? Bearing in mind MOS:FIRST "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."
 * "The expansion is a prequel to the original game, where the player takes the role of Specter Knight". Does the player take this role in the prequel or the original?
 * "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight". For any reader who has not played Shovel Knight the lead does not describe the gameplay[!]
 * "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals." Similar comment. Never mind what they resemble, could we have a description. And what are "boss fights"?


 * I have formatted the lead similarly to the lead of the FA video game DLC BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. There is a wikilink to downloadable content, there is a link to platform game (yes, a platform game is a video game). I will clarify that the players takes the role of Specter Knight in Specter of Torment, there is a helpful link in Gameplay directing unfamiliar readers to the Shovel Knight article to read about its gameplay (same as Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den). Boss fights are also wikilinked. What else can I do to make the article more understandable without causing redundancy with the other linked articles? I'm a bit confused about your concerns here.  The Night Watch     (talk)   21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild follow-up ping on the response I raised above.  The Night Watch     (talk)   23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A Wikilink is not a substitute for an explanation. See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, I still don't understand what you want me to explain here:
 * Dowloadable content is wikilinked and formatted in the lead just the same as BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. That article's lead offers no explanation other than a wikilink to what DLC is since doing so would be redundant and DLC is a common concept with video games.
 * "Platform game" is the same terminology used with multiple other video game FAs, including Katana Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, Super Meat Boy etc. Those articles give no detailed explanation for what a platform game is, most likely because the genre is extremely prevalent. Any given Mario game is a platform game so the vast, vast majority of readers are familiar with the concept.
 * "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight" this is how the sources themselves cover the subject, and nearly all assume familiarity with the original game. This approach is not unusual since Minerva's Den introduces its gameplay in the lead as "Gameplay is similar to that of BioShock 2, with new enemies and weapons."
 * Boss fights are an also extremely well-known concept within video games, we even have articles dedicated to some video game boss characters. Again, I don't know why an explanation is needed in the lead.
 * What I guess I'm trying to say is that the approach of the article is in line with other video game FAs, and including all those explanations in the lead would be very redundant. I see the points raised above by Mike Christie and I'm still looking to see how to make the article less vague without messing up the wording, but I still don't think any explanations are necessary.  The Night Watch     (talk)   23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok. I was hoping that my points would be rapidly grasped and corrected. Thinking them over, reading your responses above, and rereading the lead I think that I am left in an even less generous position than Mike. Although at the moment I don't intend to look at anything other than the lead I will turn this into a formal review, recuse, work through the comments above and the rest of the lead, and see where we are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild A problem that I see is that there no precedent for this level of explanation of game mechanics in the lead of any video game FAs so I see a problem. Without a precedent or example of the lead you are looking for, I have no clear idea how to execute your comments to a satisfactory level. Could you give me an example of what you are looking for in the lead? I think you mean that I should explain the gameplay concepts like this: In the lead of First Punic War, there is no explanation for what galleys are. I certainly know what they are but I don't know if the average reader will know.
 * The current lead says "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." but with an explanation of what galleys are it would probably read like this: "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys, warships relying on oars for propulsion which were were a staple of the Roman fleet, laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." So I'm guessing you want me to explain each of the gameplay concepts in the lead like how I explained galleys above. So the "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals" would be reworded to something like "features boss fights,  which are battles with difficult enemies and levels that are redesigned from those of the original Shovel Knight game" This just reads poorly and I'm really just confused, sorry, just trying to understand your perspective. I might ask for a third opinion on this one because I feel quite stupid right now.  The Night Watch     (talk)   19:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire
Side comment

On Mike Christie & Gog the Mild's concerns above: The short version is that I don't think making changes to address them is a good idea, and the article is fine as is. This is a larger topic than just this FAC, though (since something similar came up for the Raichu FAC). To be 100% clear, I agree that FAs should be written as accessibly as possible for a broad audience. But, we also shouldn't needlessly repeat broader-topic material. So to go into it some more...

The essence of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is being able to spinoff long sections into separate articles to keep the length of the content down to encyclopedia article length, not full book length. The assumption is that, in a dead-tree book called "Shovel Knight", it can be chopped up where a chapter of the book called "Specter of Torment" (or "Plague of Shadows" or "King of Cards", etc.) is a separate article. The nature of this means that there will be some repetition, but there's a limit. Something like saying "the gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight's" is fine; in a book that would mean "flip back to the previous chapter you apparently skipped", and on Wikipedia that means "click the wikilink." The alternative would be having to repeat the same material on gameplay in 6+ different places, which would defeat the whole point of summary style - of splitting up the book to a separate article per chapter, conceptually.

On the general gaming terms topic, there's basically a certain understanding that if a reader is truly, truly clueless on the overall topic, they're going to need to read up on some basics first. To keep the topic on games, broadly construed, if someone doesn't know anything about a particular sport, but they're reading about a baseball shortstop or a cricket wicket-keeper or whatever, it's understood that they need to click the wikilink on baseball or cricket or shortstop first. In practice, we don't describe what a shortstop is on all 20,000 articles on baseball shortstops we have on-wiki. To me, this is analogous to the "platform game" or "DLC" analogy - if a reader doesn't understand those terms, it's valid to expect them to start with reading up on that first. Again, the alternative is to explain platform game across 20,000 individual platform games, equivalent to explaining shortstop or catcher 20,000 times. Or, as mentioned already, the Roman example. If a reader is truly clueless about the Roman Republic, doesn't know what a legate is, doesn't know what the Senate was, doesn't know what a legion is, etc., then yeah, they're going to need to read at least a little on the broader topic first.

I'm hesitant to "call out" other FA articles because there's many ways to skin a cat and I'm absolutely not trying to start a FAR or anything, but to pick a recent-ish FA I supported and personally reviewed the sources on... Croatian Spring frankly requires a decent amount of background knowledge. It was an imposing review, and I consider myself pretty well-informed compared to the wider public. If a random American reader doesn't know who Tito was, doesn't know about the SFR Yugoslavia, doesn't know about Yugoslavia's Federal structure, doesn't know about Croatian nationalism... they need to do a lot of reading first. But that's okay. Trying to include all of that would swell the "background" section to be larger than the entire rest of the article. But the article is on the "Croatian Spring", not "Yugoslav History 101 catch-up", which is already written elsewhere - it'd blur the identity of the article to include it. If we're okay with trusting the audience to be either somewhat interested in Yugoslav history to begin with (hence being at the article at all), or else being willing to do some catch-up, it's fine and Working As Intended. Analagously, I think it's fine to expect a certain degree of "if this isn't enough background, please click on the Shovel Knight article, and if you're really unfamiliar with video games, click on the video game / platform game / DLC / etc. articles."

I may turn this into a fuller review at a later point, just wanted to drop off my two cents here. And to reiterate again, I wholeheartedly agree that articles should be as accessible to readers as possible, so enforcing this is good for when there truly isn't enough background explanation provided. I just think the standard is met here for sufficient background to get a reader up to speed. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Review I don't see "2017" anywhere in the lede. That seems kind of a strange omission - a casual reader just skimming for dates might think that Torment came out in 2014, too.
 * Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment is a downloadable content (DLC) expansion for the 2014 platform game Shovel Knight,
 * Done

I disagree with Vami IV's (EDIT: ChrisTheDude's) earlier comment on the lede. "Master" is gender-neutral these days, and "mistress" makes it sound like Specter Knight is having an affair and cheating on his wife to a casual reader. Maybe skip the contested word entirely and just say "knights for the Enchantress, the main villain of Shovel Knight"? Up to you.
 * recruiting a group of knights for his mistress
 * Done

Is "redesigned" really the best word? I feel like "redesigned" suggests more like Yacht Club edited the original levels, but they're just new levels. Perhaps something like "features new levels and redesigned boss fights"?
 * features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals.
 * Done

Okay, the lead is fairly short, so I guess there's room, but... is exactly how long the dev team spent on balancing the levels really so important as to be lede-worthy?
 * spent four months revisiting and balancing each completed level.
 * Is there anything else that could be lead-worthy? The art design? The character moveset? I agree that it really isn't too vital but I am unsure what else to include

Nitpick: My understanding is that it wasn't the criticism, exactly. It was just that Plague Knight's movement was too hard for a subset of the player base - the devs said that completion stats for PoS were noticeably lower than base Shovel Knight. In other words, it wasn't necessarily the complaints that were instrumental, but rather a "silent minority" sending a danger signal to the devs. Maybe something more like "after feedback that the movement of Plague Knight was too complex?" (EDIT: To expand on this distinction a little, imagine a big MMO developer gets feedback on each patch which always includes a harsh chorus of criticism. However, in this hypothetical, one patch shows player counts drop by 20%, along with the usual criticism, and the dev makes changes in response.  While there was criticism here and a change resulted, it wasn't really the criticism that drove the devs, but rather the stats.)
 * The team designed Specter Knight to be an easily controllable character after receiving criticism for the movement of Plague Knight
 * Reworded

Same feedback here as the lead. Checking the source, GameStop simply says "new level designs". I get that the new levels have similarities (of course they do, they're set in similar regions) but they are genuinely new levels IMO.
 * The levels and bosses in Specter of Torment are redesigned versions of their counterparts from the original Shovel Knight
 * Reworded

Optional: As written, this sentence is a bit who-cares. The developers had some ideas that didn't work out, and replaced them? Stop the presses. That sounds like every creative work ever. If there's a more interesting story at the core here or something else that's trying to be communicated, then maybe include that, or rephrase the sentence to get at what was distinctive? But if there's truly nothing to say otherwise, I guess this is fine if uninteresting.
 * The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections.
 * Mike Christie wanted the wording to be closer to the sources, so I tried to make it closer to the source even if it definitely feels uninteresting.

Either use a period, or don't capitalize "they". Maybe worth rephrasing some anyway; perhaps: "The developers, after playing the game so much themselves, found it tricky to balance the levels. They decided late in development they had made the levels too difficult, and gradually reduced their challenge before release." Or something like that.
 * The initial stages had a high level of difficulty which was gradually reduced as development finished; They attributed the difficulty to skill they gained at playing the game.
 * Done

Nitpick: Maybe cause for a new paragraph here? I understand the paragraph would only be two sentences long, but it's slightly jarring because the theme of the paragraph is "changes from Plague of Shadows" and suddenly we're talking about a totally separate topic, the soundtrack, for the last two sentences.
 * The soundtrack was composed by Jake Kaufman...
 * Done

(Comment, non-actionable) This reads strangely at first, because it makes it sound like Kaufman was creating music on the side while gaming on Twitch, since that's the default assumption of what someone is doing by "streaming on Twitch." Source clears it up though, and I guess it would be too awkward to explain "(and he was just creating music while streaming, Twitch was just the platform, he wasn't also gaming)" or the like.
 * who created most of it while streaming on Twitch.

Reception section for later, perhaps. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception section commentary: "Some" might be over-qualified. It's understood that not all reviews parrot the exact same line, but as long as other reviews aren't actively contradicting a sentiment found in many reviews, I think it's fine to just bring it up as an example of critical response, and remove the word "some".
 * and some felt that it built upon the merits of the original game.
 * Done

Very optional because there's disagreement here, but I will just drop off my usual two cents that I personally prefer the wordier style that includes the human author of the review. Yes, it's in the cite, and yes, it makes the flow slightly worse, but it's also more accurate. Humans write reviews, not magazines. (But as already noted, this is a matter of preference, so a thought if you agree with the above, but it's not blocking if you disagree.)
 * GameSpot said...  USgamer felt... Shacknews felt... Nintendo Life said...
 * I prefer to not use the names to make the flow better, but I agree that it makes the article more accurate. I wish there was a way to compromise somehow, but alas it was a choice between flow and accuracy.

(non-actionable) Side chatter: This is referenced, but dang, game reviewers have no taste. Specter of Torment is about the tragedy of mind control and evil artifacts that go boom and is played seriously, which is the complete wrong call for Shovel Knight. Plague of Shadows plot was way better by embracing silliness more, which fits with the general tone. But if nobody published agrees with me, oh well.
 * The story was considered a highlight
 * Yeah I agree, Plague of Shadows was way better story wise even if the levels were just the same old-same old.

Same issue as above - it's understood that by writing "Critics" it does not mean literally every single critic, so IMO the word "Some" is dispensable.
 * Some critics gave attention to the boss fights
 * Done

I don't think this accurately reflects the source. It's implying that only "some" of the bosses were fun and that these were the bosses that were changed the most, but that isn't what GameStop says. I'd rewrite to be closer to GameStop - that they found the redesigned bosses an "enjoyable surprise" and thought that some of the bosses were too similar (but not imply that they weren't fun).
 * GameSpot felt that some of the bosses were fun due to their changes to meet Specter Knight's new movement, but said that others were too similar to their previous incarnations.
 * Done

Is this really an "and" connector? They're contrasting opinions. I understand that it's OR to directly set them in opposition to each other unless one is referencing the other, but maybe "while" would work instead rather than "and"?
 * USgamer considered the bosses easier than in previous games, and Nintendo World Report said that some of the earlier boss fights were frustrating
 * Done

Reverse complaint here as GameStop: I think this is too close to the slightly dopey original wording in Shacknews which uses "scope" in a nonintuitive way. Given the next sentence, maybe "some players would dislike the narrow focus on platforming gameplay", which makes more clear the nature of the complaint?
 * Shacknews said that some players would dislike the lack of scope
 * Done

"Competent" is an unusual choice here - perhaps "excellent"?
 * and was just as competent as the original Shovel Knight.
 * Done

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks SnowFire, I believe that I have addressed your comments  The Knight Watch     (talk)   03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work!
 * The one remaining nitpick from above (not blocking the support because of this, no hurry, but something to maybe improve regardless): If you agree that the length of time the devs spent tweaking levels isn't really that interesting, then I would recommend removing it from the lede, and replacing with basically any other piece of dev information desired. That the levels were specially designed for Specter Knight's movement style?  The balance between platforming, combat, and exploration?  Jake Kaufman doing the soundtrack?  Or even just the total length of time spent developing the game as a whole?  Really anything else from the dev section is more "interesting".  SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC
Putting myself down for this. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, usually I manage comments within a week but I was a bit behind here.

I want to start by addressing Gog's comments. I think it's unreasonable to expect video game articles to be explained in greater detail than any other article just because some readers may not be entirely familiar with the subject matter in general. This level of explanation is not a standard expectation for video game FAs. I have two, Islanders (video game) and Islands: Non-Places, which open with "Islanders is a casual city-building game" and "Islands: Non-Places is a 2016 abstract art game", respectively, a level of detail considered acceptable at FAC. I opened a few other VGFAs at random and none of them had the granularity Gog is asking for here.

Let's compare to other media like films and music. Fearless (Taylor Swift album) has "Fearless is a country pop album" in the lead; The Mummy (1999 film) opens with "The Mummy is a 1999 American action-adventure film". Neither stops to explain what those genres mean, or what a studio album is, or a cursed mummy, and nor should they; that's the job of the articles on those concepts. Straying outside the limited realm of popular media, Night Watch's galley example is a salient comparison. A reader not well-versed in ancient naval warfare may not be entirely certain of what a galley is, but it's a common term in the subject area and we shouldn't have to grind the article to a halt to interject an explanation for them. Same here with common terms like boss fight and platform game.

Okay, enough on that, let's get to the real review. All comments and suggested wordings are open to discussion or disagreement.


 * Lead, gameplay, plot
 * "They created new levels...each completed level" - repetition of level. This may be unresolvable given the limited amount of terms for "level" available, but worth pointing out
 * "the evil Enchantress" - lead mentions she's Shovel Knight's villain, but the body doesn't
 * "forward through the air, upward or downward" - maybe "move through the air, forward, upward, or downward"? Right now it's odd that one direction comes first
 * "Progressing through the game..." I would move this sentence to the first paragraph, as it doesn't make sense tacked on to a paragraph about Curios/Relics
 * No gripes with plot summary


 * Development to Character design
 * "character with unique movement" I'm not sure I love this phrasing. "unique movement abilities" maybe or "unique movement skills"? Willing to hear your thoughts.
 * "The team felt that the movement of Plague of Shadows" this reads slightly awkwardly to me. "movement in" maybe, or "character's movement in"
 * "surmised" feels unnecessarily formal here, IMO "thought" (or similar) would do just as well without being overly formal
 * "The wall jumping was inspired by 3D action games such as Prince of Persia" - this link/phrasing is a bit problematic, because you've linked to the entire Prince of Persia franchise, of which several games are not 3D. Unfortunately the source doesn't specify which exact POP game they were taking inspiration from. I might adjust the phrasing to something like "3D action games such as those from the Prince of Persia franchise".
 * Also, that source says the wall climbing was also inspired by Ninja Gaiden, but our article only mentions it as inspo for the slash movement
 * "The developers wanted Specter Knight to act like a "grim reaper ninja", at one point included shurikens..." grammar's off here. "including shurikens" would be the easiest fix
 * "a UI element" this is opaque. If you're going to keep "UI", it should be written out fully as "user interface", and linked. However, I'm not sure that's the best phrasing - it's not really clear what a "user interface element" in this context. I would also simplify the explanation of the results. I might go with something like "adding an icon to objects that could be slashed, indicating the angle the player would move upon attacking".
 * "They further allowed Specter Knight to fall slower" - "They slowed Specter Knight's fall speed" or "Specter Knight's fall speed was slowed" might be tighter
 * I would split the Curios into their own paragraph
 * "allowed them to be" - again, can tighten to just "made them"


 * Level design
 * This is the portion of the article I have the most issues with. It feels disorganized. Each paragraph should contain information about one idea, but you're a bit all over the place.
 * Para 1 discusses balance of level mechanics, difficulty balance, and development time
 * Para 2 discusses level mechanics and difficulty balance
 * Para 3 discusses new objects and new art, and then goes back into difficulty balance
 * Some parts of this section are repetitive as a result
 * "Mega Man" links to the franchise as a whole but the text sort implies it's a specific game. Since the devs don't specify which Mega Man game they counted from, I would say "the Mega Man franchise" just to be safe.
 * It may be hard to write around this, but the phrase "the team" appears in four successive sentences in Level design and it can be a little repetitive
 * "The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections." I think you could tighten/clarify this phrasing. Something like "During development, the team often reworked or rearranged rooms and enemies, sometimes abandoning complex ideas in favor of more basic platforming sections." maybe.
 * The way you talk about "balance" in the first paragraph is a bit ambiguous. First it's about the balance between different aspects of the game, while later you switch to using "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, without really making that obvious to the reader. The easiest fix is probably to use a different word for the first aspect - a "consistent mix" of elements maybe.
 * As for the use of "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, I might slightly expand to say something like "tricky to balance the difficulty of the levels".
 * The two paragraphs you have about level design feel like they repeat themselves a bit. You have multiple separate sentences across these two paragraphs talking about how the devs adjusted the difficulty of levels over time. You could probably cut down or merge some.
 * "As a result, the team created" - I don't think you need "as a result" here.
 * "They used background art to convey information about gameplay mechanics, indicate secret rooms, and further the narrative." this is really interesting but you don't expand on it at all - how is this done?
 * Any further info about the 3DS version's new art? What kind of new art?


 * Release and reception
 * This section is largely great. It's thematically-organized, properly summarizes reviewer thoughts, and reserves quotes for only the most significant or interesting statements. I have some organizational complaints, but overall this is quite good.
 * Para 3 uses the word "moveset" in 3 successive sentences, which could probably be written around
 * Para 4 could probably be split where level design is mentioned, as that's a separate idea
 * Also in Para 4, you open with discussing how the platforming received praise, but then finish the idea with a review that complains of it. I might revise the opening sentence to hedge slightly - "The platforming received similar praise from most reviewers" for example
 * Again Para 5 could be split. You have story elements and then you swing over into boss fights, and then into game length. Those are separate ideas. Possibly you could get away with combining level design and boss fights, since those are related in the sense that both involve reworked elements of the original game. Then you could probably leave length with story, as the story determines the length.
 * Para 5, "liked the narrative" feels like filler. Maybe "praised the narrative for being "surprisingly tragic"", which would tie it together better
 * "Critics gave attention to the boss fights" I would say mixed attention, since it seems to be split between praise and complaints.

Okay, done at last. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you PMC! I'll get these comments done sometime tonight.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Coord note -- This has been open over two months and has yet to gain consensus to promote; I note also that NightWatch has had to step back from WP so resolution of outstanding concerns won't be possible for a while. Wishing NW the best and hoping they'll be back in due course to revisit the article and perhaps bring back to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)