Talk:Assassin's Creed Origins

Assassin's Creed Origins has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 12, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Ancient Egypt Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Development and Gameplay info

GameInformer cover story and articles [1]
UbiBlog article [2]
Official website [3]
Julien Laferriere Interview [4]
Developer Q&A [5]

− 2012MarcoMDNA (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, only the first and the last is properly usable, wherethough the first is already in the article ("Five Things You Need To Know About Assassin’s Creed Origins"). Lordtobi (✉) 11:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the gameplay section

Overnight, I updated the gameplay after IGN published a few videos about the game with Ashraf Ismail discussing the new gameplay features. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to upload these videos as sources—almost all of my browsing activity is done via mobile device, and as I was watching the videos through the YouTube app, I could not get the URLs to include them as sources. Does someone mind adding them to the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the Premise section does not have any valid sources/references to back it up. Could someone please verify if possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH3RIFFO (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leak needs sources? References?

The following sentience; "Information on Origins, then titled Assassin's Creed Empire, first leaked in January 2017, showing several screenshots of a character on a boat and in front of a cave." does not have any source or reference to back it up. Could someone possibly verify this and add what it's mentioning? I would love to see what it's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH3RIFFO (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The review-dance: "recent", "since Black Flag" vs. "either the best or one of the best"

Hello everyone,

Since this is a topic that seems to pop up often enough to ruffle some feathers or at least cause different ideas on phrasing to surface, I wanted to make a short statement on the talk-page concerning the case of "reception" in the overview-section. In short, the problem concerns the depiction of critical "canon" of the article in either the phrasings "recent", "since Black Flag" vs. "either the best or one of the best by multiple critics".

On Wikipedia, we all try to stay neutral and give an overview of the topic at hand as complete and as neutral as possible so that the readers can inform themselves without authorial ulterior motives. The problem I see here in regards to Origins is that both "recent" and "since Black Flag" are way more limiting and inaccurate in scope than "either the best or one of the best by multiple critics". Thus, these phrasings damage the quality of the article by leaving out the featured critical assessments claiming it is thew best in the series overall.

By writing "recent", it is subtly connotated that only the sample of recent games is taken into consideration, leaving out the junk of featured reviews in this article (and in general) stating that it is the best entry overall (which obviously includes the "older" games in the sample, not just the recent ones). By writing "recent", this phrasing is thus contradicting the reviews claiming it is the best game in the series overall(/the best application of the Ubisoft-formula) or it is inferring something the reviewer has not stated.

The same problem arises with "since Black Flag", only that "recent" is now given a definitive point in time which is even more problematic. Quite simply, if there is a reviewer writing it is the best entry in the series, it is contradicting to his/her claim to write that it only is the best in the series since "Black Flag".

In short, I do not really see why "either the best or one of the best by multiple critics" is not neutral and should not be applied in the overview as it takes all aspects of the reviewer-spectrum into account and informs that not all critics are of these opinions, only "multiple" (which the written reception-section confirms). Maybe the "multiple critics" is throwing some off or comes off to strong, in which case I would suggest that someone please edit it since I can only think of "a number of critics" which (sounds nonsensical and) really could be applied to everything in existence if there is just one sourceable critic of this opinion. Other than that, I can only think of "some" which is problematic, too, by both simultanously under- and overstating the importance of certain critical assessments plus one could be accused of arbitrariness.

So, as a conclusion, I will return the overview-phrase to "either the best or one of the best by multiple critics" for the time being and if there are problems with this, we can always discuss how to improve this phrase or replace it by discussing in this thread. Thanks for reading, feel free to comment/agree/disagree/back this up at any time.

Kind regards, 46.84.175.143 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller[reply]

Plot expansion

The plot could be expanded a bit more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So do it. Remember the basic guidelines though and keep it concise and under 700 words. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to add the plot of the latest DLC "Curse of the pharaohs" to the plot section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, it would. Please go ahead. Lordtobi (✉) 06:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references in this entire section, is this not an issue?

Intro reads like an advert

The current opening reads extremely positively, its unsourced, and I don't think its backed up any actual critics, I've not heard of any critics lauding any aspect of the game, let alone referring to it as the best installment of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:F986:386B:B684:DE91 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is pretty standard. Leads generally don't require sourcing, as they are summarizing the rest of the article that is sourced. See the reception section. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Editions table

I had added a table overview of the available Editions, as there is one in the Assassin's Creed Syndicate page as well. As suggested by Lordtobi I have now removed it by Opting it out for now, and seeking consensus here. The opted Out version of the table is a cleaned up version, removed store links from the first version I made, and added with a secondary source. Krughal (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response and reason not to include for the past 8 months, I will remove the Opt out tags, and make the table visible again. Krughal (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassin's Creed Origins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. If I haven't gotten back with comments and suchlike by Friday next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanHok: It's generally looking very good. One think I'd ask, is there a different but still illustrative gameplay image you could use? That one's cropped almost to 4:3, when the original game's 16:9, and chops out UI elements. I looked at the image history and saw your original upload had a watermark, but is there a different image you could use? --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new screenshot. OceanHok (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Alright, here's my review comments.

The statement in the lead about the ratio of developers is the reverse of what's described in the Dev section. Which is correct?
In "Gameplay", do we need to know Bayak's story role for the gameplay? You can just transfer the links to the Plot section.
In the Plot section, do we need to define Akhenaten as monotheistic, unless it's specifically a mentioned and important point in-game? Can't we just say he worshipped the PoE as the Aten?
In "Development", there's excessive repetition of 'the team'.
There's no need to link US Gamer, just say "in a later interview" or something similar.
"Actress Alix Wilton Regan voiced Aya..[53]" - Two full stops.
In "Release", I can't see anything about the Amazon Luna release.
In "Reception", it's not strictly a fail factor I think, but there's rather a lot of quotes used in the prose.

@OceanHok: Also, last note on the gameplay image. The image's name and summary section are now inaccurate, and you didn't update the image source. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: - I think I have addressed most of the problems listed here. I cannot find a source that explictly say Origins was added to Amazon Luna (though I can find news about Ubisoft+ which contains Origins launching on Luna). OceanHok (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanHok: Sorry for the long delay for a reply. I think this article merits as a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot

File:AC Origins horse.jpg has been the screenshot since 2017. This was replaced with File:Assassin' Creed Origins gameplay screenshot.jpg by OceanHok [6]. Reasons given: Revert, the original screenshot is from (1) pre-release which didn't fully represent the game (2) horse-riding is such a generic component that didn't reflect the uniqueness of gameplay (3) The HUD from final game is different from the screenshot shown here.

A few problems. Horse-riding is far more unique than fighting, which also happens in Mortal Kombat, Super Smash Bros, etc etc etc. The HUD in the new screenshot can hardly be made out after non-free reduce. And because the characters in the new screenshot are in the shadow, they are also difficult to see, particularly after the non-free reduce.

I'll take a look around for another screenshot as I do agree that a pre-release screenshot isn't ideal, but the new upload isn't an improvement. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first screenshot on [7] is an option? I think a screenshot should give some impression of the fact that this game is set in an open world. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the horse screenshot with something more recent. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the new screenshot. OceanHok (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]