Talk:Alone in the Dark (1992 video game)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 07:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked 
are unassessed)
Overall comments: Following a round of feedback, the page is in a state where I am confident it conforms with GA standards. The page is notably comprehensive in its source list and provides an adequate discussion of the game's content, development, reception and legacy for an encyclopedic standard.The nominator has done a great job in continuing to improve te back in response to feedback on content, phrasing and grammar. There are no known bias or attribution issues. The page should be adjusted to a GA. Vrxces (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]- Headline
- Initially released for the MS-DOS operating system... - the headline could be simplified by stating the game was "developed and published for MS-DOS in 1992, and ported to MacOS and the 3DO in 1994."
- Changed.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- on top of two-dimensional backgrounds images - fix to "background".
- reimagining of the 1992 game - these are typically referred to as a remaster.
- This isn't going to be a remaster a la the Pokémon Red and Blue example, but rather a grounds-up rebuild of the game, akin to something like the Resident Evil 4 remake. I think "reimagining" is a useful term to describe something like this.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Gameplay
- What sort of puzzles are used in the game? Are they inventory-based puzzles to combine objects, or are the game's puzzles more complex, using information or mechanical puzzles?
- They're kind of all over the place, but I suppose inventory-based is most appropriate. I'm not sure how best to describe them without an explicit source.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Inventory is highly limited... - suggest adding 'The'.
- ...attic and third floor, whose rooms are arranged... - suggest rephrasing to omit "whose", maybe "which are arranged"?
- Grammatically, 'whose' is OK in these situations, despite what prescriptive textbooks often say.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Available space in inventory - suggest rephrasing to "Space available in the inventory" or similar.
- ..and each challenge must be overcome... - suggest rephrasing as the context of the paragraph does not make it clear what a 'challenge' is.
- partially non-linear - could detail that this means that the progression or goals in the game can be completed in a non-linear fashion, rather than the game itself is non-linear.
- Changed to "Alone in the Dark has partially non-linear level design."--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Plot
- I'm not sure what the convention is for the 'Cultural References' section outlining the influence of other works on the game. I know the inverse (MOS:CULTURALREFS) is frowned upon. One argument could be that the section is mere trivia. If so, it may be worth connecting this to the 'writing and animation' section and its discussion of the intent of the game to convey the themes of classic horror. Otherwise, it could be argued it provides prior context for this section and doesn't need to be touched.
- I recognize that trivial lists are frowned upon. However, the game's connection to Lovecraft is often discussed in sourcing, so I think explicating that connection is beneficial to the reader.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Development
- was struck by the concept - just a comment that I find the subtle pun funny.
- (Other sources claim... - suggest removing brackets for this section as unnecessary.
- ...in a 1920s mansion: Such an... - suggest changing to "mansion, as such".
- sequences that recall the aesthetics - this could be expanded slightly - what aesthetics were suggested to be evocative? If it means just general resemblance, using a pull quote could help.
- I changed this to: "...a situation which the game's designers used to limit the player's field of view, thereby engendering an aura of 'apprehension and fear'."--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- A common misconception is that the game's backgrounds are devoid of 3D information. - sources haven't been used to establish there's a common misconception. It's not supported by the next cited source, which is the strategy guide. The "devoid of 3D information" is also awkward phrasing. Perhaps it would be better to omit, unless another source can be found.
The source reads "Many players imagine that the characters are 3-D, while the backgrounds are 2-D. Actually, behind each bitmapped image is a 3-D object." I feel like the text in the article is a faithful paraphrase of this. I changed the "devoid" part to "the game's backgrounds lack 3D information".--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)- Actually, yeah, I agree with you. I've just removed it. It doesn't really add that much.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Citations for the Atari Jaguar CD/32X ports enter the territory of citation overkill.
- I've bundled them.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- That the iOS port received "mixed to poor reviews" is not supported by citations, as only one review is cited.
- Removed.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- You may want to insert a 'see also' template for reference to the remake.
- Reception
- I think the GameRankings rating should be omitted. The score is an aggregate of three reviews from minor adventure gaming fan blogs; the remaining sources the site cites are from 2006; one of them is a GameSpot article about the film adaptation, another an E3 preview of the 2008 remake.
- Fair enough. I've removed it.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- ...claimed had caused him "jump in fright..." - fix to "caused him to"
- References to Scorpia can be linked to Scorpia (journalist).
- The link is already there.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- ...screams instill the right mood' - fix ending parentheses
- ...that can kill you without warning... - suggest rephrasing to avoid second-person tone.
- In look-back at the game... - suggest rephrasing to "looking back" or "a retrospective".
- The last paragraph seems slightly under-done compared to the others. It may be more useful to draw out the theme by noting reviewers identified several issues with gameplay mechanics, and providing more concrete pull quotes from sources about the issues that are listed.
- ...have resulted in Alone in the Dark not holding up to modern standards. - The statement by IGN's Tom Chick that the game "hasn't aged well" is linked to a discussion of the visuals. The source is dated to 2000, so its assessment of "modern standards" may not be helpful to a reader.
- I just removed this. I'll tinker with the entire paragraph here in a bit.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Legacy
- There is a heavy use of citations to verify the list of sequels in the first paragraph - this strikes me as reasonably self-evident.
- I'm always leery about sourceless strings of text in the body, no matter how self-evident, but I can see what you mean. As a compromise, I've added a source after each game, rather than bunching them all up at the end of the sentence so that it isn't so citation-heavy. How is that?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- This section seems insubstantial in its current state given the game is a notable and influential work. The second paragraph is a missed opportunity to provide more detail on the cultural impact of the game in establishing the survival horror genre, particularly an assessment of mechanics that the game pioneered or popularised. The citations could better be used for pull quotes that describe this legacy in more detail.
@Vrxces: I've just now completed my first pass of this. I'll work on the sections that I did not respond to asap! In particular, I'll try to bulk up the criticisms and legacy sections; I'll also try to clarify a few things with handy pull quotes.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I've expanded the legacy section to specifically mention a) the ways the game established many of the survival horror tropes and b) how it influenced Resident Evil. More to come!--Gen. Quon[Talk] 17:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks - I will review shortly when I can. I appreciate your meticulous responses to the feedback. I'm a less experienced reviewer, so I can appreciate that some aspects of this feedback maybe have intermingled matters of personal preference or minutiae. So thanks for actioning a lot of these points; the article doesn't seem to be of the type that has any major barriers to GA assessment at this point. Vrxces (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just a minor fix suggestion: Shinji Mikami discovered Alone in the Dark: Mikami believed - should the colon be a period? Vrxces (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch. I'll patch that up.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)