Talk:God of War: Ascension

Spoilers

Do we not think that the first paragraph is a bit heavy on the spoilers? Maybe the plot can be summarised without giving away that key characters are killed and how the game ends. --Ryan Williams (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with spoilers for various reasons. If you don't want spoilers, don't read Wikipedia. --JDC808 ♫ 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that? Typically plot spoilers outside the realm of official blurbs are confined to plot sections, which is marked with a spoiler heading. Are you speaking for Wikipedia or yourself? --86.19.104.81 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm speaking for Wikipedia. You can read all about it here. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia guidance on plot summaries, the 'Plot' section in this article (and many of the God of War articles actually) is unnecessarily detailed — too much non-encyclopaedic moment-by-moment narration. The 'Plot' section should stick to providing a brief outline of the key points that matter in the context of the whole series, much like the opening paragraph does. It should also directly follow the opening section, thus making the summary in the first paragraph redundant. Wikipedia no longer recommends spoiler warnings, but it does recommend avoiding spoiling plot points unless a specific encyclopaedic goal is met by doing so — and generally this is done after the lead paragraph(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Williams (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Four of the God of War articles have passed as Featured Articles with this same format, which is a standard format across video game articles here on Wikipedia. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make them beyond reproach and in breach of current Wikipedia guidelines. You've clearly decided that your curation is above criticism though, so I'll leave you to it.--Ryan Williams (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer: Gameplay section vs Development section

The multiplayer belongs in the Gameplay section as it is part of the gameplay. In regards to what should and what shouldn't belong to the Gameplay or Development section, Developmental stuff, like the God of War engine being retooled and anything like that (there are a couple things in my edit that can be put in Development which I will take care of after posting this) belong in Development. The date confirming multiplayer also belongs in Development for developmental history. Anything that involves the Gameplay of the multiplayer itself belongs in Gameplay. Also, you keep reverting and taking out "An early demonstration shows" from the multiplayer section. I have explained in my edit summaries why this needs to be here. I'll try to explain it better. Without including "An early demonstration shows", it'll make readers think that the battle with Polyphemus is the ONLY thing you do in the multiplayer. It is NOT as there will be more that we haven't seen yet. Your wording makes it sound like the battle with Polyphemus is the only thing multiplayer will feature. JDC808 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant information on multiplayer is in the Gameplay section. The technical information, complete with sub-title (and date), belongs in Development. There is also an addition that clarifies that this is all a trial at this stage. Note that the addition is placed before any comment on the game as it go all still go out the window.

Also try and avoid making statements (e.g. which I will take care of after posting this) and edits that smack of ownership ([1]). Bluerim (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the technical information and date belong in the Development section, but NOT as a sub-section. Please find me one article that has a multiplayer sub-section in the Development section. All game articles that I have seen with multiplayer either have it as a sub-section under Gameplay or multiplayer is its own main section. Some of the information that you are putting in the multiplayer sub-section under Development belongs in the sub-section under Gameplay (e.g. There are a variety of multiplayer modes, customisable avatar warriors, armour and weapon types to unlock. Players will be on teams of four where the teams will try to take control of the map in order to earn rewards from the gods. The multiplayer option will only have a slight story element.) This all deals with the gameplay of the multiplayer and doesn't need to be in the Development section, though the "slight story element" could potentially be put in the Development until we actually find out what the story element is.

With the addition of the "trial" (which demonstration sounds better since it was only the developers demonstrating it), you did not have that at all in your previous versions.

I know of "ownership of articles". I've been an editor of Wikipedia for quite a few years now. There's a difference between claiming ownership of articles and taking great interest in articles to try and present the best information so that readers get the information they need/want to know. That comment you pointed out was not a "smack of ownership" as you claim. I was simply telling you what I was fixing from my previous edit. JDC808 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the language once again. This is the biggest issue I have: you can't see the errors in the writing. Bluerim (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of that writing was already your writing. In addition, the box art caption should be "working box art" as it is not official. "Working box art" is the universal caption used in just about every game article I've seen where it's using an unnofficial box art. I don't quite get why you're changing the part in the header either. It keeps a consistency across the articles.

The sub-section is necessary. Go look at other articles with multiplayer. It's either a sub-section or a main section. Without a sub-section or even a main section, it makes multiplayer look less important, which it's pretty important as it's the first time the series will feature it.

I'm not gonna disagree with trying to correct language, though in some areas, there wasn't really anything to correct, and some of it was already your language. Some of the other language is language the source used. Also, some of your language is a little misleading. For example, The trial demonstration indicated that players must first sell their champion's soul to one of four gods...... No. Todd Papy confirmed this, he didn't indicate players must sell their souls, he confirmed it, and the trial demonstration was of the actual battle with Polyphemus. Same thing goes for the female avatars, he confirmed that there will not be any in the multiplayer. Read the sources. JDC808 (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits (as of June 10, 2012)

Single-player section

Why are you taking away the information? There is nothing wrong with the information there, so why are you minimalizing it? The other games tell about the gameplay mechanics and combat systems, why shouldn't this one? The game isn't out yet. This information tells what's going to be in the game.

Development section

You continually change the information from this - "Director Papy notes that the game was not titled God of War IV to prevent confusion as it is a prequel to the trilogy, not a sequel. Ascension was chosen as it goes along with the game's story as well as the multiplayer, as players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." - to this - "The announcement officially confirmed the name of the game as God of War: Ascension, as both the game's story and the multiplayer feature describe how players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god."

Your version is incorrect. Todd Papy stated that the MULTIPLAYER is having players "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." He did not say this about the single-player. He just said that the name of the game goes along with the single-player and that was it. Also, Kratos DOES NOT ascend from an unknown hero to a god in this game. For one, Kratos is not unknown (just about everyone across Greece in the game knows who he is) and two, he DOES NOT become a god in this game (he still has Chains of Olympus and God of War I to get through). Also, God of War IV is mentioned in the previous paragraph, we should mention why this game is not God of War IV. JDC808 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? There is no user name. I think you need to to take a step back and think about your overall conduct - which smacks of ownership - and study the changes made. All I had to do was tweak some rather informal language and tighten a few sentences. All the information is still there, but presented in a tight, concise form. If there's anything else that needs adding, suggest it and we can weave it in. Regards.

Bluerim (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't obvious who I was talking to. Time and time again, this is not ownership. This is simply trying to do the best for these articles. Please point out the informalness of the language. This is language pulled straight from the sources with some tweaking (as to not use words like "you, I, we, us" etc.). Tight and concise is fine, unless you take away or change information incorrectly, which is what you're doing in some areas. In regards to blind reverts, like I said, I never blind revert. I know exactly what I'm doing when I revert. I read through what has been changed. So please, don't call me on blind reverts. JDC808 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to the tight and concise issue, they showed four new gameplay mechanics/combat systems. It's kinda hard to be more concise and trying to explain all four, especially the first one. JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Life Cycle mechanic

Bluerim, what you were putting previously was this: A new "Life Cycle" mechanic showed Kratos capable of manipulating the environment, such as creating usable platforms from wreckage... and then later Other new features....manipulate time and control objects for puzzle solving, and freeze opponents during combat.

This was essentially repeating the Life Cycle mechanic as the mechanic does all of the above. I saw that you have fixed it, which is good. I'm going to tweak it just a little bit. JDC808 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"God" v. "god"

The page is littered with errors.

God is the name of a particular god, i.e. the god believed to be supreme. The "g" in the word "god"--not the name "God"--should not be capitalized unless it is the first letter of the word "God" as it functions in a name, e.g., "Aries, the God of War," or "God, King and Creator of the Universe," that is, a proper noun.

Perhaps one of the main contributors of this page can comb through it to correct the errors. I would suppose that we have a collective interest in the proper usage of capital letters: we would not want to set a poor example for, or perpetuate misunderstandings among, the Wikipedia readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.66 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, sometimes it slips through. The only time we capitalize god if it's the title of the game or if it's the title of one of the gods (e.g. God of War, Goddess of Wisdom, etc.). Any other time it should not be capitalized but sometimes by accident, it gets capitalized. --JDC808 ♫ 05:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent

First off, I'm really tired of you claiming that I make blind reverts. I absolutely do not. I read through the entire reversion for errors, and then I revert if I find many errors, which recently there have been very many.

On to the issues of the reversions. To start, what you've done doesn't incorporate several of Torchiest's suggestions. What was previously there is far more closer to his suggestions and was actually a paragraph that I wrote with some tweaks. Next, you essentially copy-pasted what you tried to do at Chains of Olympus, and in doing so, there's errors throughout. Firstly, the game is not out yet, there's tense issues throughout for this reason. Secondly, we don't know anything about secondary weapons (other than the ones he can steal, but those have limited usage) or how many magical abilities that will be acquired.

Moving on to Synopsis. There's not an issue with changing "press" to "media", however, it should be "the media" and it wasn't a "demo disc". Linda Hunt isn't needed in parenthesis. Later in the paragraph, "The war spawned the Furies, guardians of honor and enforcers of punishment." This is good (albeit "the" should be put before "guardians"), but you follow it with "The first traitor was Aegaeon, the Hecatonchires." with no lead way into this statement. The previous version gives a lead way into this that makes it flow much better and more understandable. The next paragraph is actually good, but I prefer the other version, at least until the game is released to give that paragraph more meat per se. In Gameplay with the blades (and lead as well), there's ambiguity in just saying they're fused to his wrists. Non-gamers are going to have some trouble understanding how he uses them and why they're fused to his wrists. Although "Blades of Chaos" is plural, in context of a sentence, its used singularly, because it's a pair of blades, not many pairs of blades. --JDC808 ♫ 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, better. This is what you need to do in future as opposed to a blind revert.

Bluerim (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Even after I explain to you that I don't make blind reverts, you still claim that I do? It's practically a personal attack now. That being said, albeit a couple of minor fixes, recent edits look good. --JDC808 ♫ 05:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an observation, not a personal attack. And yes, the article now looks quite good. Well done.

Bluerim (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

The article has been modified as it needed some tweaking. None of this is controversial or likely to spark any real debate with multiple users. The main correction is to the Settings section, which still (as with other GOW articles), read like a subjective travelogue. This is unnecessary, No other game articles are written in this fashion, and any mention of foes – particularly minor screen fillers as opposed to major Bosses – can and should be summarized in one sentence. This is not outrageous. There are other minor tweaks and these are also reasonable. If there any apparent mistakes, then the correct form of action is to alter that particular section’’ as opposed to a blanket revert.

In regards to Setting section, the claim you made that other articles don't do it is false. Setting sections are to describe the Setting, which includes common enemies or peoples found there. As per blanket reverts claim, it would be nice if it was that simple. --JDC808 ♫ 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it is perfectly reasonable to alter the article. It is by no means perfect, and in fact, no article ever is. I direct everyone’s attention to the excellent page on Ownership of Articles - WP:OWN. In the Overview, it specifically states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

Yes, anyone can edit. That's a basis of Wikipedia. That's not the issue though. The issue is where you're not a consistent editor, you come back from your intermediate breaks and make either big changes or remove information, and after being called out on it, you don't discuss, or at least don't discuss enough to reach a consensus (which is why I'm restoring the Setting section). --JDC808 ♫ 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It also states:

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.

As the Overview states, having a hobby is a fine thing, and listing the articles one has contributed to on your personal page is OK (although showing signs of taking a stronger interest than most) , but the interest has to stay at this level. Also note that a blind revert, accompanied by a statement such as “No, it isn’t” certainly falls into this category. Blanket claims of a refusal to discuss when the point has been made and there is no acknowledgement of said point also falls into this category.

Ok...and what blind revert are you referring where I said "No, it isn't."? The fact is, I have asked you to discuss things over and over and you just don't do it, which has lead to unintended, unwanted edit wars. If the point was made and agreed on then we could actually get somewhere.--JDC808 ♫ 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A quote from the Ownership page that describers an overzealous editor and says it all:

• "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."

Remember, no article is perfect. All that aside, kudos for the good work is creating the article almost from nothing, and in particular working on developing the Plot narrative, which is always a slog the first time. Bluerim (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Where have I once said these articles are perfect or need no changing? I know they're not perfect. That's why I edit them a lot and put them through GAN and FAC reviews and have them copy-edited. Thanks for the comment, although I didn't actually create this article, though I have done the most work to it. --JDC808 ♫ 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have checked out the Guidelines ([2]) and taken note of the Settings section, which mentions a few things of interest. These include but are not limited to:

• Setting - explanation why locations are important but without trivia.
• Inappropriate content - which talks about excessive fictional detail and fancruft.

I can see from this and a few examples such as Red Dead Redemption that the Setting section has indeed been written from the wrong perspective, in this case fancruft. The focus should be that the game utilises several real and fictional locations against a backdrop of Greek mythology. With this in mind, I'm reverting. This is also important as some of the Gameplay language was very simplistic and did not read like a formal encyclopedic article. If there are small errors somewhere pleaee feel free to correct, but note everything must be explained and not written from the POV of a GOW fan. Some of the Plot fell down in this respect. Thank you. Bluerim (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Setting bit is taken from a section dedicated to creating an entire article about a Setting, though some can be applied. That section also states it "should .. include information about the setting as it applies to the game." It also states "Briefly discuss the role in the game and any aspects of the in-game world that is notable and/or an important fact to the game." The statue of Apollo is notable. Enemies can be included within this. I leave it to outside reviewers to decide if the information is fancruft, which currently, you are the only person who has stated it being so on any of these articles. The simplistic nature you speak of is for that very reason: explaining for someone who doesn't know GoW (or games) so they can understand it. I might be wrong on where you're referring to simplicity, but the idea of it being simplistic and not formal is subjective: you may think it's that, but there are others who do not. Another reason for the review process: although it too has subjectivity, it helps refine things with multiple viewpoints assessing it. P.S. you should take your own advice, instead of a blanket revert, go to the particular section and fix it. You reverted many corrections here and on the other articles. --JDC808 ♫ 17:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing? Got it. The article has now been overhauled and reads more like a professional article (such as Red Dead Redemption or even Call of Duty: Black Ops) as opposed to a fan-effort. There is, as there should be, now more focus on the technical aspects with a light overview of Setting and Characters. Monsters have now been weaved into the Combat section as it is quite appropriate to name the type of foes the player will face with the combat knowledge. Any other corrections to Plot can be simply added in, although the language must remain formal and avoid casual phrasing. In short, now an improvement on both previous versions. Bluerim (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your example articles aren't the best choices (for one, neither are FA, let alone GA, and there's a lot of issues throughout them; they look more like fan-efforts). As to this article, you overhauled what didn't need overhauled and that is your opinion that your version reads more like a professional article (I'm not saying the other version does or doesn't). You really need to stop with this "fan" thing. It's just not true. On one of the other articles where you tried pulling the fan card, an administrator disagreed with your viewpoint and no one else on any of these articles has stated that it reads like a fan page (except for one a few years ago, but he's banned for sock-puppetry). The Setting section, I don't quite understand this minimalist approach you're going for. The way you're doing it, there's no need for a Setting section as that could just be covered in the Plot (after establishing this as part of the article layout, I really disagree with removing the section). Also, as per organization, the Synopsis is before Gameplay because on a previous FAC review process on another article, it was suggested that way because it made more sense and was easier to follow.

In my last revert, I tried to make compensations throughout. I've kept many of your corrections as it applies to the rest of the article (not including Synopsis and Gameplay, though there are things kept there). If you try to revert, try not to do a whole article revert because there are corrections in other sections that are being reverted that shouldn't be (e.g. Development section). I think our biggest issue now is just Synopsis and Gameplay. I feel that there will be disagreement, so I ask, when you make your edits, don't do a whole article revert, just go in and edit those sections, separately, as that will be less troublesome than a whole article revert. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean well, but it's time to take these articles to the next level. Almost all the FA articles that can be found at the Wikiproject Game Page use the format I've provided (random examples I looked at include Final Fantasy XIII, Ico, Kingdom Hearts, Myst and Vagrant Story - that's good enough for me). It is very logical and allows for the natural flow of the article. The Setting is a by-product of Gameplay, which defines the parameters of the game itself. It comes first. The enemies can be, and should be, listed in the same section as they are a feature of the gameplay just as much as, say, puzzles. As to Setting, this is the place for a general set of comments about the universe the player is in (a la the Halo series). Micro-details are not relevant or necessary here. In fact, if anything they confuse a new reader who just wants a "big picture" view of the game. Check out the five examples I listed above - these games dwarf GOW:A in terms of locations and yet the entries are still written in a succinct fashion that conveys the gist of what is required. A delicate rewrite is possible with more focus on how Kratos traverses this ancient Greek world and less on what a valley or particular pillar looks like.

As to reverts, not true. I've incorporated several of your changes into this version, minus the very simplistic and less formal language. It is saying the same thing, but as a piece of prose as opposed to a few grouped observations that are worded in a clunky fashion. Bluerim (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"it's time to take these articles to the next level." Really? What do you think I've been doing over the past year? If information was "worded in a clunky fashion", why not just fix the wording instead of removing information?

I put the characters in the Gameplay in my last edit (before your revert). Speaking of reverts, you did exactly what I asked you not to do (which was a whole article revert). I asked that you only edit the sections in question as to not revert corrected info in other sections below the two problem sections. Speaking of new readers, in a previous FAC review on another article, a new reader wanted even more than what was previously there. Those articles you pointed out are good examples (and much better than the previously provided ones), but I must ask, did you read the ones that include a Setting section? They explain the Setting. Also, not all FA articles use that format of Gameplay before Plot (e.g. Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages). My biggest concern regarding that format that you're arguing for is that a reviewer unfamiliar with this series in another FAC review said the format with Synopsis before Gameplay is much easier to follow and made more sense with information that's stated in the Gameplay section. --JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean well, and your efforts have not gone unnoticed. That said, the article, as with all the GOW articles, needs more work. A collaborative effort after all. Now, the great majority of the FA's use the format I have introduced. It is both reasonable and consistent with these articles to adopt the same format. Again, one person's comment aside, Setting is a feature of Gameplay. By that logic, it follows. As for the information itself, we'll try for a rewrite, as it can be better still. Comprehensive without the micro-detail. If you look, you'll notice a number of your valid additions have been kept.

I have noticed and commend you on the effort. --JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As to a reversion, be careful not to show signs of WP:OWN. Anyone can revert, although my intent - evidenced by the cutting and pasting of info you have introduced - is to meld the best of the two. If a link etc. is missing, then add it, but not weak language. Bluerim (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an issue of OWN, it was that corrected information in later sections (e.g. a tense issue in Development) was being reverted when you made the whole article reverts. That's why I asked to only edit the sections we were in disagreement with. I'll settle on the format. I wasn't necessarily against it, but rather what I had explained earlier. I'm going through and correcting things (e.g. the Eyes of Truth are not Orkos' eyes, they are the Oracle's eyes). --JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say it has been a pleasure helping bring the article along. It really does look impressive now and easily deserves FA status. A hearty well done for your perseverance. Of course, this now means...yep, we need to backtrack and tweak the others for consistency, but not greatly. Thank again. If there was GOW Barnstar, I'd award you one. Regards

Bluerim (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha thanks. See what discussing accomplishes. P.S. Don't switch around the format on the first GoW, at least yet. It's under FAC review and I don't want the guy who opposed earlier to oppose it again. I see it passing this time (no opposes so far). Once it passes, it can switch to this article's layout. --JDC808 ♫ 05:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:God of War: Ascension/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Review

I will get to this this week. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, been busy. I'll do it tonite =D — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok lol --JDC808 ♫ 19:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Combat

• "Additionally, when certain foes (such as a cyclops or a juggernau)" -- is it juggernaut?

Yes, fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 03:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Passed I have not found anything worthy, though my GAN standars have been a bit weird these times. I'd recommend a PR before submitting for FAC :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. --JDC808 ♫ 06:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources to be used

Going to read over these soon and see if there's any good stuff to include from them. --JDC808 ♫ 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/09/16/qa-the-art-of-god-of-war-ascension/

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/03/08/god-of-war-ascension-qa-taking-kratos-to-the-next-level/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-sony-santa-monica-mastered-the-ps3

soundtrack

http://www.soundtrackgeek.com/v2/soundtrack-review-god-of-war-ascension/

http://www.assignmentx.com/2013/cd-review-god-of-war-ascension-soundtrack/

http://www.vgmonline.net/godofwarascension/

http://www.filmmusicmedia.com/reviews/godofwarascensionbytylerbatesreview --JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings

GameRankings' aggregate score adds nothing atop Metacritic's in this case (difference of less than a single percent...) and should be removed. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to list percentages apropos of nothing in the Reception section. Metacritic's text-based characterization of the Review at least gives context or a benchmark for what the number generally means.  czar 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How Can a video game page be a featured article on WP?

Today it got featured and I have never seen a video game page get featured, How is this Possible? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abdullah Al Manjur: Are you new here, because articles about video games have been featured several times as Today's Featured Article (TFA). In fact, every game in this particular series that is a Featured Article has now been a TFA. Your questioning of this sounds like you have some kind of bias towards video games or video game articles. It's possible because A.) it's a Featured Article, and B.) there is no rule that says an article about a video game cannot be a TFA (if there was, that would be bias and would go against Wikipedia policies). --JDC808 ♫ 09:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sales figures&revenue

According to this article from VG247.

https://www.vg247.com/2020/05/12/god-of-war-ascension-grossed-100m/

God of War: Ascension shipped over 3 million units worldwide and grossed over $100 million in revenue. Can this be put in the sales section if created? Timur9008 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can be added, though we do not need to add a section. It can go along with the sales info in the Release section. --JDC808 ♫ 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)