Wikipedia:Peer review/Capitalism (computer game)/archive1

Capitalism (game)
When I first came to this page I was disappointed, so I rewrote it from scratch and I've got it to this state so far. I know the Gameplay section is woeful and needs much improvement - but what else can be added? Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks! — Wackymacs 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Straight away the images are lacking fair use rationale.  Lord  ViD 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The synopsis section is a bit too short to be viable, expand or merge into the lead/gameplay sections. Without going into the realms of original research, how is it similar to games that came before or after it. Some more info on how it was recieved by gamers (rahter than educators) wouldn't hurt, did it win any awards? The tone of the gameplay is a bit too familiar, the language needs to be tightened so it sounds a bit less like something you'd read on gamefaqs.--nixie 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LordViD, Fair use rationales have been added to the images. nixie, I am slowly rewriting the Gameplay paragraph and will try and expand the Synopsis section. I'll try and find out if the game won any awards, because I think it did. Thanks for the comments so far. — Wackymacs 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick observation; the first sentence reads "Capitalism is a capitalism"...This is a very awkward phrase; perhaps you could omit the second capitalism, which is redundant.  Lord  ViD 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed. — Wackymacs 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. More stuff;
 * 1) In the infobox, the "Everyone" rating is obtained from which company? the ESRB? could this be clarified in the infobox please.
 * 2) The lead section is lacking; a brief paragraph about gameplay in the lead would be helpful.
 * 3) While we're on the subject of the lead section, I think it's pretty messy; the statements about Capitalism Plus should be merged with the statements about Capitalsm II at the end to make something like this; "It [Capitalism] spawned a more advanced release entitled Capitalism Plus and a sequel called Capitalism II in 2001, which is frequently used for educational purposes at colleges for students studying business...". It just seems odd to me to bombard the reader with information about Capitalism Plus in the first paragraph when they came to read about Capitalism.
 * 4) Linking years and dates is inconsistent throughout the article; somne dates are linked but others are not.

More to come later :)  Lord  ViD 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done most of this — I still need to add the gameplay bit to the lead, I'm not sure how of to word it. — Wackymacs 08:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job with bringing the article to life, but more work will be needed. Since you asked, here are some suggestions:
 * Sales Figures / Competition: Was the game a commercial success?  What similiar games did it compete for shelf space with?  You mention it being one of the first business and economics simulation games, but were there critical comparisions to games like SimCity or Civilization?
 * Motivation / Influences: Why did Trevor Chan design the game?  Was he influenced by anything already on the market?  Were there any later games which were influenced by this one?
 * I would also recommend adding a picture of the game itself. You have the scenario screen, but nothing that shows the "meat and potatos" of the game.
 * Finally, although I know you are just starting, I would be careful of putting too many opinions in the article which are unsourced. An example, "Competitive AI is good ... The game's interface is daunting to first time players. There's just no way around it." -- This reads too much like your opinion, as someone else might have thought the AI was horrible or the interface was simplistic.  If many critics mentioned the cumbersome interface, etc., then it should be sourced.
 * Overall, though, I wish you the best with putting this article together. I'm a geek for these types of games, and would be interested to learn more. --Ataricodfish 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)