User:Caleb gp

Article Review

I have been playing video games for most of my life and am deeply intrigued in how they work. How the worlds are built and work in these games has always been one of my main points of interest. When I looked up the Wikipedia page concerning a type of these virtual worlds I found it very lackluster, so I visited the Persistent world page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects worth commenting on: The under-representation of Pervasive games on the page, the reliability of sources, and bias on the page.

Under-Representation

Pervasive games are a type of game that are directly linked to the real world. Games with this world build are extremely expansive and contain a lot of data, so the very small amount of relevant information concerning them is strange to me. A current example of this type of game would be Pokemon Go where as you move around in the real world it affects things in the game world. These games are super closely related to persistent games because you can't have a pervasive game without it being persistent. Though the pervasive page itself has some good information I would like to see it expanded upon on the persistent page.

Source Reliability

As I looked through the sources given I noticed that quite a few were from an article or a book with no link. I would have to go and find it myself which is a little off putting because it adds extra steps to check it. The actual links also either lead to another Wikipedia page or a questionable looking page. Most of the authors seemed actually reliable, which is somewhat a redeeming factor. A lot of work could still be done to make the information more reliable but there is still a decent amount there.

Bias

I did not notice any bias towards the subject. It mainly gave regular information with no mention on whether or not format was good or bad. The sources were also very unbiased by just giving me the facts and information about the subject and explaining how it works.

Summary

At the end of the day the page is "decent". It has good information and isn't super confusing. The page could really benefit from adding more information and making the sources more accessible and not as questionable looking. Other than those issues the page is well formatted and very interesting.