Wikipedia:Peer review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King/archive3

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King


Hello everyone. This article is about a Buffy the Vampire Slayer video games. I will always love Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the show has actually had some amazing video game adaptations, specifically Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Chaos Bleeds. However, this article is about a much more mediocre game based on the series.

I had opened a peer review for this last month in preparation for a FAC, but I just got overwhelmed with the work and this being the first video game article I would take to a FAC. I will leave this peer review open for a much longer (and appropriate) amount of time this go-around. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to ping to see if they had any advice as I had asked for help from them during the last peer review shortly before closing it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, but I do not think I will be putting this through the FAC process as I am debating retiring from Wikipedia in the near future. I will still leave this open for a month just so I can improve this article as much as possible even if my FAC intentions have changed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Le Panini
Round three; this time around, I'll focus on reception. You know, the section nobody wants to do. I'll dial this down to be as descriptive as possible, to explain a good format that'll be effective for not only this section, but other articles you contribute on to come.


 * When it comes to video game articles, statements from critics that are similar should be organized in tight sentences. It's done a little bit, but could definitely be improved.

If reviewers were mixed on the soundtrack, then something along the lines of this would work well.

"The game's soundtrack received mixed reception; Gamespot found the sound to be one of the game's highest points, and critics referred the music to the likes of soundtracks found on the Nintendo Entertainment System. However, some reviewers questioned the connection to the series, with some calling the music bland."

Its best to avoid making the section list-like, for example, "A liked D, B liked D, but C did not like D". Instead, summarize what multiple reviewers thought about one thing at one time, for example, "ABC liked D. Some liked this about D, and some praised this about D. DEF did not like D, because of this and that." Let me clarify; I normally like to format my reception section like this (note this is an example, reasons vary): Give a starter sentence, kind of like a hook, that describes what this section is about. Then, list off reasons explaining this hook, like if two critics found the graphics realistic, combine their points if they are similar; it would say something like "Some critics liked how the graphics looked realistic compared to previous games in the series," You can add on more points if the critics have more things to say that are similar, such as "Some critics liked how the graphics looked realistic compared to previous games in the series, and some found them to be the best selling points of the game." Add on as many as there are to mention. If one reviewer goes against the grain and says something interesting, unique, or just a quote or paraphrasing to describe it all, that's when I get specific. I tend to list out what source they're from, and most of the time their name, and explain what they thought about the section in question. I only quote if they said it better than you can. Such as, "Ozzie Mejia of USGamer praised the world design for being innovative and "standing out from 2020", and compared it to the likes of Cyberpunk 2077." You an do this multiple times if there's a reason to do so. Summarizing like this will make the sections lose the meat to their bones (as in length), so you can continue on the paragraph with another hook, maybe with the soundtrack. This will result in paragraphs looking like "this section is about graphics and music", "this section is about plot and characters", "this section is about negative reception", "this section is about key points that had mixed reception", etc. Now, shove this all together. Here's an example; I'll dissect this with colors to show the different sections of a paragraph. Being the hook (purple), the summarizing points (blue), the specific reviewer mentions (orange), and the split off into another key point (red). The example I'll use is from my current featured article nomination, Paper Mario: The Origami King.

undefined undefined

And here's another one, from the same article:

undefined undefined

I hope this overly extensive and detailed line helps. Le Panini [🥪] 22:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I wish that it was formatted in a way that was easier to read and understand because right now, it is a rather massive block of text and I personally find that to be quite intimidating and not as helpful as it could be. With that being said, I will definitely look at that section again in the near future. Again, I appreciate the comments, but I think it would be better to structure review recommendations/advice in a more user-friendly manner.
 * I am honestly uncertain about combining as many reviews as you are recommending above. I have looked at featured articles on video games, like Panzer Dragoon Saga and Oxenfree, and while both examples group together reviews by topics, I do not see a lot of this type of combination within each paragraph. I have tried my best to vary the sentences prior to these peer reviews so it is not just the "A said B" trap, and I always refer to this essay (Copyediting reception sections) for help with these sections. Again, these are just my opinions, and I will definitely look at this section again when I have the chance and I greatly appreciate your help. I hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whenever I use this style of formatting, I don't tend to get much comments on changing the section. If you have your style, then by all means ignore this. Happy holidays! Le Panini  [🥪] 01:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy holidays. I hope my comments are not rude or dismissive in any way. I just wanted to offer some (admittedly unsolicited) advice from my past Wikipedia experiences. I was uncertain about your suggestions because I had a different impression from reading video game FAs, but I could be completely wrong. I just wanted to have a discussion about it and raise my concerns. was not pushing for a response like "then by all means ignore this". I hope you are doing well and staying safe out there. This has been a truly crazy year. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I meant this in a friendly way, so sorry if it came off as passive aggresive. I created this style of writing from guidance from czar, and it works well from me. And who knows? These articles were promoted in 2018, the norm might have changed by then. Le Panini  [🥪] 01:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You were fine. I am terrible at reading tone in writing so it was my fault lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

czar
It's pretty good! I'll leave some copy edits as I read. czar 08:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (Any questions I pose below are rhetorical)
 * Don't think you need a dedicated plot section, per WP:VG/PLOT. Platformers rarely have noteworthy plots. Do sources cover its story in-depth? If not, just mention and source their points as part of introducing the gameplay.
 * That is a fair point. The game does have a storyline that it does focus on and develop throughout each level so I would say that it is worthwhile to discuss in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Introduce the game in terms of the player's actions and goals. What does the player do? For example, see Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels.
 * I have revised this section per your suggestion. I find this interesting because it shows how I am in the minority when it comes to how I approach video games because I always think about the plot before the gameplay so that's probably why I structured it that way. But, I agree with your point that it is best to just go straight to the point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Reception introduces the concept of cutscene "portraits" without context for the reader to understand. Are they praising the graphics quality during cutscenes? The concept of having close-up character views during cutscenes? The variety? Either give context for portraits in the Gameplay or generalize what the reviewers mean in the Reception.
 * Why are we reading about Riley Finn in the first paragraph? Set up what we need to know about the game and its gameplay: the player controls a character, what does the character do, what is the core of the gameplay? The cutscenes and how the story is told is secondary to that.
 * I think I was trying to establish some sort of context for the reader prior to just going directly into the gameplay parts. It is probably another sign that when I think about a video game, I generally think about the plot over the actual gameplay. I agree with your point, and this should be better scattered through the section rather than bunched up in the beginning. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Gameplay is divided": How? Describe what this means? Are each of these gameplay types separate from each other or are they mixed? If the latter, can just say that the player does XYZ.
 * "Levels are completed" is passive voice. Active voice: "The player completes levels by..."
 * "Each weapon can be customized to become more powerful" >> "Each weapon becomes more powerful with upgrades"
 * "Enemies were chosen" >> ...
 * When switching from "the player" to Buffy, include some kind of transition, e.g., "The player, as Buffy, dodges obstacles ... Buffy can progress"
 * Parallelism. If you say Buffy fights enemies, solves puzzles, and jumps on platforms, I'm looking for those concepts to be discussed in that order. Define each sequence on its own instead of jumping between finding switches, dodging obstacles, using ropes. Group relevant gameplay together.
 * Fair enough. I meant for this sentence to be more of an overview. I have revised the ordering to reflect how they were brought up later in the section, but this section as a whole could probably use a rewrite from a far more experienced editor than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The episode names read as trivia. Sounds like it'd be sufficient to say "Set in the show's fourth season" and then describe the related story elements: the bosses, the weapon, etc. But it doesn't need more than a single sentence or two after the gameplay has been established. What makes it trivia, e.g., is that it introduces "Glove of Myhnegon" without explaining what that is or what it does or why it's important.
 * That is a good point. I think this was a hold-over from when I had the plot summary first which gave more context to the glove. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not required but I personally find r much easier than . Also easier to stack refs that way.
 * Thank you for the advice. I have actually never seen that before, and it does look a lot easier. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Are there any upgrades besides combining weapons? If not, can be more explicit
 * Weapons: What are they? What do they do/how do they work? Weapon durability and use of ranged weapons should go before upgrades, based on what I'm reading.
 * I have revised this part. Just wanted to note that I do not think of any of the sources for the game list all of the weapons. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "second collaboration for a Buffy the Vampire Slayer video game after releasing Buffy the Vampire Slayer in 2000." A bit too much Buffy? Can rephrase as something like "following their Game Boy Color game in 2000" and link.
 * "Because of the company's reputation as a "family-oriented publisher" Natsume or THQ?
 * The heroes quote is a bit promotional/gratuitous, personally
 * I agree. Besides, I do not think the company really believes that anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "after ... ended" After what ended? The season? The series?
 * "third of six" Above it says THQ's second? Is this numbering worth mentioning? If not, might want to mention sooner.
 * A second game was released in 2002 by the Collective. I am not sure if the order is relevant/notable enough to mention in the article as I can see this being very trivial, but I'll leave it in case any future editor finds something to do with it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "restrictions placed" Technical/software or social/policy? Makes it sound like Nintendo's doing
 * Unfortunately, I cannot find any information to further define this. In the cited interview, Natsume only vaguely references some type of Game Boy Advance restrictions without commenting any further. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * not sure what balance size against background means
 * "On June 22, 2003, it was the fifth most-ordered game on the online marketplace Amazon" Why is this detail needed? Can it be generalized without losing its intent?
 * Does GBA really need to be abbreviated for the few times it's used?
 * "teenhood merely as drab and awkward survival" Does this quote justify itself? The GameSpy quote seems more relevant as a follow-up. Attempt paraphrase for all quotes? "fairly bog-standard stuff" "the virtual Slayer actually looks, moves, and grunts like the real Ms. Summers" All can be paraphrased, unless the point is to go into graphical/audio detail
 * In your opening sentence about gameplay criticism, is there anything more specific you can say? Did many critics pan it? Was it focused on one part in particular? This applies to all opening sentences
 * That is a fair point that would definitely help the article. I am just not that invested in it right now as I'm heading out of Wikipedia, but thank you for raising that as hopefully, that can inspire any editors who wish to do further work here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(not watching, please )  czar  21:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Italicize all original publications
 * Sentences like "GameSpy and Nintendojo felt it was too difficult to distinguish which areas were platforms,[28] and in a similar sentiment, GameSpot disliked the placement of obstacles and platforms outside the player's field of vision.[1]" are great (but missing Nintendojo ref?)
 * My browser crashed and I lost all my edits... but good thing I took some notes above. I went back and re-did a few.
 * Again, above comments are rhetorical so no need to reply inline but let me know if you'd like any follow-ups!
 * Thank you for your comments and copy-edits! I'm just happy the article is not a complete disaster lol. I have addressed some of your points and responded to some of them as well to hopefully clarify my thought process when I was writing and structuring the article. Hopefully, these comments will help any editors who wish to improve the article any further. I love Buffy as the show, but this game is very average so after I put up this peer review, I found myself questioning why I'm putting so much time into a game I do not like if that makes sense. Anyway, apologies for the rambling. Have a great (and safe) end to your year! Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems as if someone likes something, they'll go out of their way and do other things related to it. I like Paper Mario: The Origami King so much I'm making the series a good topic. It makes sense. This is a pretty good article! Le Panini  [🥪] 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)