Talk:God of War: Betrayal

IMAGE!

That's not free to use! Surely not! No! Arghh! It even as the IGN watermark! --91.105.13.49 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beat the game, then edit?

Ok, what if we beat the game? Should we edit the page because I know what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatchetGOD (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article summary doesn't cover the whole game, then yes. The other God of War games have summaries that cover the whole sequence of events, there's no reason why this one shouldn't either.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of view

This section can't be used as it is one fan's opinion.

When referring to the overall series, Betrayal is very often forgotten (an opinion). For example, in the 2010 documentary, God of War: Unearthing the Legend (a franchise documentary), the game or its story is not mentioned (relevance?). Also, in the 2010 documentary, God of War - Game Directors Live, there was not a director represented for the game and its story was also not mentioned (again, relevance? This is an assumption based on an omission). It is, however, mentioned in the God of War III: Ultimate Edition - Strategy Guide (so? Threading together perceived points based on opinion).

Got to be factual, regardless of own views. 125.63.191.61 (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be "one" fan's opinion, but if you look at the facts, it's true. I've read however many articles about Ghost of Sparta and they completely forget that Betrayal even exists. There was one recently I read, which was an interview with one of the developers on Ghost of Sparta, and the interviewer asked a question that said something along the lines of GoS taking place right after God of War and leading into the opening of God of War II. The developer answers the question and doesn't even acknowledge Betrayal, making it seem (for someone who doesn't know about Betrayal) that Betrayal doesn't exist.

In those documentaries mentioned, if you've watched them, you would know that what is said there is true. God of War: Unearthing the Legend discusses the entire video game franchise (this happened before GoS, so GoS wasn't mentioned for that reason) but Betrayal is not once mentioned. They talk about Chains of Olympus, God of War I, II, and III, and their relations to Greek mythology, but say nothing on Betrayals relations or just acknowlege that the game exist. In the God of War - Game Directors Live documentary, there was not a game director present for Betrayal and non of the game directors (including Jaffe) did not mention one word about Betrayal, and the host didn't even acknowledge the game, instead, she made it out that these five games (and their directors) are the only in the franchise.

As for the Strategy Guide mention, that's the only time I have actually seen Betrayal mentioned (aside from Wikipedia and review sites) that even acknowledged Betrayal as part of the franchise. 129.71.208.91 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that these are not stated and sourced facts. It is your opinion that these are a) facts and therefore b) significant. Sorry. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That obviously shows that you have not seen the documentaries. The source itself is the documentaries that you are failing to see, but you are bypassing it because there's not a cited source per se. 129.71.208.91 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's try again. Just because someone did not mention something does not make it notable by simple omission. It is your opinion that there is a significant correlation, with the point of contention being that you are making an assumption based on what is not being said. There may be a reason for the omission, but as we don't know, we can't speculate.

125.7.71.6 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

C-Class Assessment.

Per request, a more detailed analysis of assessment.

To begin with, I'll briefly describe the definitions of the three main assessments I try to deal with: Start, C, and B. In a nutshell, Start articles are more detailed than stubs, but weak in certain areas. C articles are generally somewhat developed throughout the article, but still with room for improvement. B implies that an article is generally a satisfying amount of detail for a casual reader and is adequately developed throughout, with GA not being too far off.

I was almost tempted to give the article C-Class. The lead and development are pretty much fine (if a bit biased against mobile titles in the latter), and the gameplay section is adequate. Normally I'd ask for a slightly longer reception section, but with only two reviews, I'm not going to ask the impossible.

Ultimately, the reason I kept it as Start was for the Plot section. If the story's simple, I don't have any issue with that subsection, but the Characters and Setting sections are a little lacking regardless. If you're going to have a Setting section, it would do well to elaborate more than one sentence. Even something like "the game takes place after God of War 17 but before God of Dance" would probably prove to be really helpful information. (Although you should probably substitute actual games instead of those.) It's said once that the game is fifth in the series (albeit in the lead), but that doesn't necessarily mean much if I don't know what the others are.

Aside, a 'setting' section is usually a paragraph that supports the 'story' section with any information that would be required to understand it. I would strongly advise pimping this section a bit to include things like what sort of Gods and monsters are being especially naughty in this game, or why Kratos has decided to be angry today, or whatever.

Finally, the 'characters' section is a bit short as well. The description of Kratos is succinct and sufficient for a game article. However, you've delegated the rest of the cast to 'all other characters are minor', which means one of two things:

• Kratos is the only important character, so you don't need the section.
• More detail about the motivations of whatever the antagonist or the supporting cast are doing today is required.

If the first, just delete it outright. If the second, go ahead and include it. 'Characters' sections can sometimes even be obsoleted by a well-detailed 'Story' or 'Setting' section, so keep that in mind too.

As I said, it's very close to a tasty C-Class, but I'm still a little hungry for plot info after reading it. You can feel free to upgrade the article after that's been sorted out. With love, Emmy Altava 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. This is very helpful. I knew the Plot section's sub-sections were probably the issue lol. I'll see what we can do to buff it up some (playing the game would be a start, they really need to release this as a PSN downloadable game). I'll also try to see if there are any more reviews for Reception. Thanks again. JDC808 (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And now it's a really solid C-Class, at least. Great job on the changes!

Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewording issues

You (Bluerim) came back from a 5 day break and made an edit to the page and that's okay. I reverted that edit and told you the reasonings for the wordings on the page because I assumed you didn't know. You reverted me and claimed "I've read it and that's still fine as it is an active statement and reads better. Other effort a tad clumsy. May need to be corrected across all articles." "Reads better" is debatable, and it actually didn't read better because you had to fix it after reverting me again. As for "a tad clumsy," I stated the reasonings in my Edit Summary (which was that the reviewers would have addressed it and some was their wording), which by the way, how was it "a tad clumsy?"

You reverted me again and then claimed "Not about "siding". They admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion. If you can come up with a third option, fine. That said, no more outright reverts please." I don't see why you said "Not about 'siding'." I said it because I trust the reviewers comments/suggestions more as they have much more experience than either of us. Also, don't put words in their mouth. The active language issue was brought up by Bridies. He/she did not "admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion." I'm not quite sure where you got that from, unless you're referring to when he/she later stated "active would be something like" which was referring to a sentence not on this page.What Bridies said for this issue was "this is another where I wouldn't argue strongly against the passive" meaning, it should be active (which he/she stated "should say"), but passive isn't necessarily bad, though active is preferred.

As for "outright reverts," this was not the case as I explained my reasonings WITH backup. You reverted based on your own preference with no backup beyond a possible misinterpretation of what was said. You should have brought this to the Talk page instead of doing just that, "outright reverts."

On a somewhat side note, "powering-up Kratos?" This isn't Mario.

P.S. We are still waiting for responses at the Characters talk page. I stated it in my ES and you haven't done anything except revert this page. -JDC808 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As you've been told, there's no need for discussion on every point. I'd also advise against automatically jumping on every edit that you haven't made. Whether you can see it or not, it does smack of ownership and is a tad obsessive (just note the length of your response here, or a random look at an Edit History such as this [1]). Take a break. These are only articles - we're not saving the world. That said, yes, I will discuss on the appropriate page when I get there, as I'm working through the pages at present. As to this page, I am going to tweak it again as per your suggestion. Bluerim (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, who told me "there's no need for discussion on every point"? If there are disagreements, then discussions are to commence to resolve the matter. I haven't automatically jumped on every edit that I haven't made. Niemti can back me up on that as the two of us worked together on Kratos with discussion and made that article an A-Class article. You've claimed several times against me for "ownership" and it's come to the point of name-calling which is uncivil. Please stop. It is false. I don't quite get why you pointed out the Revision History of Ghost of Sparta. It has nothing to do with this issue. I've never stated that we're trying to save the world. That is a very wild statement to make. As per my suggestion, what suggestion? Also, you failed to answer my question about it being "a tad clumsy"? There's been many times that you have claimed this (or something similar) and I've asked for you to explain and you never have. Your last edit summary was not a "Slight correction so clearer" because you're stating "chests are colored green...". The whole chests are not colored those colors, they have a marking on them (the omega symbol) which that is colored the corresponding color which is why "Corresponding colors mark each chests" is more clearer. That sentence correlates that without micro-detail like how I just explained. Also, you should not have made that edit as there was no consensus. SGCM at the Characters page specifically stated to you "a compromise does require concessions." As for length, I was explaining the situation thoroughly. I was trying to avoid another edit war which is why it was lengthy. --JDC808 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

Lead

Gameplay

• You could merge the second paragraph with the first one if you wish. All Ok.

Merged.

Plot

• Good

Development

• Good

Reception

• Good.

References

• Good.

All seems to be very good. I will wait until you see this to pass the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, I was a little worried about this article because I wasn't sure if there was enough content and sources, mainly sources though. --JDC808 ♫ 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, i consider it is very detailed and complete. I don't see any issue with the sources, as they appear to cover the topic very accurately and precisely. Regards. Passing. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright cool. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A-Class assessment

Requesting assessment for A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed content from article

| rev1 = Modojo | rev1Score = | rev2 = The Escapist | rev2Score = 8/10

However, Modojo's Justin Davis said that although it "isn't too bad", it "isn't great".

Davis felt that the combat system was "a little shallow", He said it seems as if the "hordes of enemies ... exist solely to act as punching (or slicing, as it were) bags for Kratos".

A review from The Escapist stated "the plot isn't progressive, but it suits its purpose for a mobile game". They also said the "platforming is great". Davis said that although there are puzzle and platforming elements, the focus is "clearly on the combat."

Sources

http://www.1up.com/previews/god-war-betrayal

http://www.siliconera.com/2007/05/10/hands-on-god-of-war-betrayal/&sa=U&ei=eAWkUfSGOJLyqwGjxYGoBQ&ved=0CCMQFjADOEY&usg=AFQjCNGUN6Lo1TiPZP5XLHzBPg8YiHKKfQ

http://www.destructoid.com/hands-on-god-of-war-betrayal-31426.phtml&sa=U&ei=5gGkUdaUAs2vqAGSgoG4DQ&ved=0CBgQFjAAOBQ&usg=AFQjCNEfC9axMf0jHMnVbyr3HR7nVqbkoQ

http://www.gamespot.com/news/sony-pictures-television-launches-god-of-war-betrayal-for-verizon-wireless-subscribers-6175475