Talk:Grand Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Panini! (talk · contribs) 12:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewin'. Panini! • 🥪 12:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral:

Stable:

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Prose comments

Lead

"while navigating maps" is pretty vague. The lead is on the short side, so additional explanation becoming too lengthy shouldn't be an issue.
"The game" is used a lot here and gets pretty repetitive
The second paragraph doesn't do too much to describe the Development section ad is rather a list of staff names. I think this could clarify/be expanded to help explain more of the design process or general reasons for concept choices.

Gameplay

"A battle from Grand Kingdom" kind of states the obvious. Who is attacking? What are they attacking? Is there anything special about the attack they're using? There's also a lot HUD content that I think the fourth paragraph describes, so I think it would be beneficial to explicitly explain what menu's what.
Two instances of sentences starting with "the game" right next to each other
"Between missions, the player equips and customizes their party using equipment..." - this makes it sound like its required, but I assume the player can leave what they have as is, right? I think a "can" and some other changes would justify this.
"Maps include treasure chests, short cuts and hidden paths to different areas of the map, and special events which can be triggered including siege weapons to help the player and traps which must be dealt with in ways that may take varying numbers of turns." Something is off about this sentence, and it may be because its a run-on. I think the special events info can be split into a separate sentence, considering they're much more different in comparison to chests or branching paths.

The majority of this paragraph has no inline citations except for that one drop of three at the end. Could these be moved around to better show what cites what in this paragraph?

"Rather than a traditional game over if the party is defeated in battle, the player loses five turns, with the mission failing if the turn counter runs out." Is this "mission failing" the actual game over? If so, I would reorganize to better clarify: "If the party is defeated in battle, the player loses five turns, and a game over results if the counter runs out."
Considering how combat is explained in the fourth paragraph I would move the image (exclusively about combat) next to it. It should also fix the sandwich between the image and infobox.

Development

This is the first instance of "RPG", and its first instance in gameplay could mention the acronym: "Grand Kingdom is a tactical role-playing video game (RPG) ..."
"Deguchi wanted a game that would mix elements from multiple game genres..." Is there a specification on what game genres he wanted? This looks like just an RPG to me.
"as he wanted to preserve them and had a love for 2D going back to his early gaming days" - "as he had a love for 2# going back to his early gaming days and wanted to preserve them" (current organization reads weird)
"Each nation was given a color theme based on their culture." I think this has more to do with the paragraph above it than graphics. I'd love it to the last sentence of the paragraph above, and it should also give a nice transition into graphics.
Good work here and at Release! Then again, the release is mainly composed of dates so that's pretty hard to screw up. But still, Good Job!

Reception

I'd link review aggregator
I'm not too sure how I feel about this section's current layout. Currently, it throws a large number of reviewer claims at the reader and the other two paragraphs are sporadic thoughts from critics.

Speaking more generally, this first paragraph speaks too generally. A lot of these statements say that something broad was liked or disliked but never say why it was liked or disliked, you know?

I'd say was good way to fix this is to better organize the paragraphs into specific praises and criticisms. For example, one of these can be used for combat. Take the general statement that you currently have and give some general overarching points, and then follow it up with some good specific reviewer opinions that further elaborate their position on the matter. Usually I pick statements that say stuff better than I could, or at least is an uncommon opinion. I think these paragraphs could be overhauled into (no particular order) one for combat and plot, one for graphics, sound, and music, and one for multiplayer or DLC. I know I'm asking for an overhaul here, but this is my one major point for holding back.
I would say the max amount of refs for a general claim is four. "The battle system met with general praise" currently has six, which I feel is overkill; I would pick the few sources that explicitly praise this and not in passing, or further clarify a few points of what specifically they liked about combat to help organize the refs into more specific statements.

Aaaaaaand... yep! That's all from me. Once these are dealt with + a Reception cleanup there isn't much holding back a promotion. I will put the page On Hold. Good work! Panini! • 🥪 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: I've tried to sort out the reception first. It was a job and a half. Also did some work on the lead. I'll get round to the rest soon as. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Hi, I think I've addressed everything you mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, woah! Now that's an overhaul. I'm gonna Pass this review. One more comment, though; to help with MOS:SEAOFBLUE, I'd put a "website" between "review aggregator" and "Metacritic". Once again, Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]