Wikipedia:Peer review/Personal computer game/archive1

Personal computer game

Current Good Article, which I'm working on making a Featured Article. I'd especially appreciate any stylistic changes that need to made, as well as suggestions for content that may have been missed (it's a top-level article, and so has an enormous scope). Checking for NPOV in the controversy section would also be helpful. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've been working from automated suggestions for the last week or so, and have edited the article significantly from that information. The suggestions can be found here. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of thoughts/suggestions:

It seems that naming the article "PC game" may be more useful, as that is a more likely search term; the current title is very unlikely.
- PC Game redirects to Personal computer game - is this a good solution? It seems better to have the actual article named in full, while people will still be able to access it with a more common search term. --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really have a strong opinion on this; it's just that "personal computer game" sounds like it would be spoken by the sort of person who would say "I require gasoline in my automobile." Opabinia regalis 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it seems that the current title is preferable. Although there's an argument to be made that they're usually known as PC games, not personal computer games, I think the benefit of spelling out the full meaning of the acronym in the title is preferable to using the acronym. Since either search term will work just fine, I guess it's best to leave it just the way it is now. :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 04:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs clarification and expansion. It doesn't really summarize the article at the moment, and the content it does contain seems oddly chosen. Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph implies that all PC games have console versions. Specifically mentioning Alienware seems a bit biased or ad-like.
The industry crash section suffers from lack of context. I assume that what you mean is that sales of PC games fell during this period along with console game sales, but computers themselves were not affected. But I wouldn't expect computer sales to be affected, because at the time, few people bought computers purely for gaming. The section would also benefit from a mention of what reversed the trend (any one particular innovation? economic improvement? better computers could run better games?)
The contemporary gaming section is awkwardly organized. First, it begins 11 years ago. Second, it devotes more text to physics cards (currently a minor curiosity) than to graphics innovations (major selling point of many games). There's no mention at all here of online gaming or MMORPGs, which are a major part of contemporary games (yes, this is mentioned later, but omitting it here entirely is wrong).
No mention of MUDs anywhere?
"Game development...is undertaken by game developers" - duh. Needs rewording and expansion. There's mention of open-source engines but not their features (or lack thereof). Again, more text devoted to mods than to mainstream development techiques; vague "written by an internet nerd" implications.
I didn't even think till I got to the mention of PopCap's shareware distribution model that there's very little attention devoted to puzzle/timewaster games, which AFAIK account for a large percentage of the total time people spend playing computer games. You also missed mentioning subscription models; their use in Warcraft makes them worth mentioning.
In such a general article, I'm not sure the specifics of Steam's distribution model merit discussion; just include it as an example of online distribution.
Genres section is extremely stubby; either expand or merge to another section such as "contemporary gaming". Again, no mention of MMORPGs, and no mention of the differential popularity of this genre on PCs versus consoles. The only mention of MMO style play at all is in the technology section, talking about the necessity of high-speed connectivity (which has not always been true, of course).
There is mention of the usual controversies over video games but no general commentary on the sociology of games - this isn't really the place for detailed discussions but you could at least comment on the demographic distributions of game players and how they have evolved over time. (Eg, the involvement of women in puzzle games and in social online games like The Sims is notable.)
There's essentially no mention of platform specificity (well, unless you interpret the title badly) - there should be some mention of the fact that many games are often developed for Windows PCs and how Mac and Linux users try to get around this (also any notable semi-recent games existing on another platform).Opabinia regalis 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would add more about MMORPG's as they are quickly becomming popular. Mention of founding titles and blockbuster ones might help to improve this section. World of Warcraft (god I hate that game) has sold more copies than any MMORGP to date. Sitava 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've not read through the whole thing, but as an avid PC gamer, I couldn't find a single instance of the word patch anywhere in the article. These were one of the defining things found in PC games and not in console games up until very recently. - Hahnch e n 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]