Talk:God of War: Chains of Olympus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGod of War: Chains of Olympus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starGod of War: Chains of Olympus is part of the God of War franchise series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 21, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
November 5, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Untitled/unsigned comment[edit]

Possible release date indicator?

Game Engine[edit]

Does anyone know the name of the game engine (i.e., middleware) used in the development of GoW:Chains of Olympus? Is it third-party or in-house? Aeonassoc 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official title?[edit]

Joystiq reports on what could be the official title for the game. Should the article be renamed? Demaar 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revealed today and changed today! KsprayDad 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added screen capture of first trailer available today! KsprayDad 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Couple of important things[edit]

I have the demo, so I'd like to state that it is the first level of the game (as told so by developers with the video on the UMD) Attica IS the first battle, and the basilisk IS the first boss. Secondly, everywhere I go, it says this demo is downloadable. That's not true to date, it's coming soon on a downloadable format, as of right not it's UMD only. If someone does have a download link however, feel free to post it. (and I'm talking about non-hacked official demos) SonicNIGHT

PS2 Version?[edit]

I've heard that this will be ported to the PS2 as a budget title the way Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories were. Can anyone back this up or was it someone just being hopeful on a forum? Master Deusoma (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no credibility about that yet Strongsauce (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's official, there will not be a PS2 port. Looks like PS2 people wanting to play Chains of Olympus are going to have to buy, borrow or steal a PSP to play it. Here's the story right from the developer's mouth. - Throw (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I doubt any developer is honestly going to state a week after a game comes out that it WILL be ported. That is just the worst strategy for selling games. A brilliant strategy is to put out a news release, claim they aren't going to, then do it 8months later. Its interesting news, but to jump the gun either way is hasty, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.51.251 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but you're wrong. This game has been developed for the PSP using Ready At Dawn's proprietary engine for the PSP. Porting this to PS2 will require extra development expenses and resources to be devoted. Ready At Dawn has already said they are altogether moving on from PSP development and Sony is working on God of War III. This game is a system seller for the PSP, as Sony has clearly indicated by their plan to release God of War PSP bundle, just like they did with Daxter. This is also Sony owned property, not a third-party product. It is more beneficial for them to sell more PSPs than concern themselves with a few more sales on an already successful console at the end of its lifecycle. They have to compete in the handheld market and give people who doubted the PSP for this long a reason to buy the system. There is more logic and evidence to suggest that is more likely that this game will remain PSP exclusive than it is not. So unless you can provide strong evidence to prove otherwise, you're hasty in your own assumption.--Dew87 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Morpheus[edit]

So, I just beat the game and I read the plot. I never saw Morpheus, he was only talked about. I read the plots of the other games and I never saw anything there either. Did I miss something? 24.20.200.29 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helios[edit]

The god accompanying Athena at the ending cutscene is clearly Helios. For starters, Helios has a voice actor listed in the credits, even though he was never seen or heard from during gameplay. Also, the artifact he recovered from Kratos was his Sunshield. And lastly, the little of him we do see in the cutscene appears to resemble his high-res character model in the final cutscene of God of War II. His sandals also resemble those of the Colossus of Rhodes boss from GoW II, which was historically a giant statue of Helios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.176.37 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning bit of the story[edit]

Chains of Olympus does not take place 10 years before God of War 1, the manual states that he has 10 years of servitude to the gods from the day he decides he no longer wants to serve the gods. It says nothing about CoO taking place 10 years before GoW 1. This needs to be changed somehow. (talk)

Article opening[edit]

The opening of the article is terrible and has a lot of personal opinions. Going to remove this block of text:

"Although this game has a violent nature, [killing beasts and mythological monsters in order to survive], the M rating is harsh. Blood disappears and floats into the air like red powder. Bodies vanish after death. There is possibly one M-rated sequence in the game, that involves the slaying of a giant lord. As for the sexual content, females are ocasionally shown topless, not in graphic detail, but keeping with the Ancient Greek theme. This game is best suited for kids older than 13, but varies on the maturity of the player and how consumed they are by violence." /KennyMan666 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex part[edit]

So, yeah. I have removed it before, but the dude has protested on my talk, So I'm going to see proof from people who have played it, and if so, see if it's truly noteworthy for the page. Thoughts? Strong Intelligent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Also, lokking over his talk, it seems as if he's made repeated acts of vandalism in the past. I suggest that we remove it and if necessary, block. Strong Intelligent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Here:[1][2][3]. E Wing (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blades Of Chaos[edit]

It is told that CoO is BEFORE than the GOW 1, but it is also told that Blades Of Chaos is obtained in GOW 1. But there is Blades Of Chaos in CoO. I only looked to the articles in here, where is the mistake???

No mistake - just understanding the timeline. Kratos is given the Blades by Ares, then there is a significant gap until GOW1. COO happens during this gap, the time when you see Kratos roaming the countryside. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits as of April 26, 2012[edit]

Bluerim, first off, you said my "claim smacks of ownership." Please explain to me how?

You apparently reappear and unilaterally decide on how the articles should be edited, irrespective of what has occurred in your absence. Bluerim (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the header. You are making it too excessive. You do not need to list the dates of the games release in every country, only the first. That's what the Release section is for, which you're deciding to rename and it doesn't need renamed. Then you're putting how it had the highest composite score at the time of its release, and then went on to how it was released as a greatest hits and part of the Origins Collection. These are all stated in the article in the Release and Reception sections. It's just repeating information.

Compromised. Bluerim (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you removing the "Demo" sub-section and the "Characters" section. JDC808 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he Demo information IS in there. As to "Characters", that's what the link is for. I happen to agree with the editor who instigated it, which makes it 2-1 unless someone else weighs in. Bluerim (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the compromising, the only thing I'm going to disagree with is the removal of the Characters section. The link is there for the characters throughout the entire series, not just CoO. JDC808 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi. I will be reviewing this. As i have no intentions to include it on my GAN drive count, i will do this review slowly and calmly. Cheers. —Hahc21 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The lead might not have refereces, since what it's stated there is expanded on the article body.
Okay, removed refs.
Okay, just so I understood that, you were saying to put 2011 in video gaming (as well as 2008) in the "See also" section?
Yes. What happens is that when people read "September 13, 2011" and see a link in "2011" they expect the link to the year, not the "year in video gaming". So, it is better of you write the corresponding "year in vidoe gaming" on the "See also" section to avoid this kind of confusion. Just a personal recommendation :) —Hahc21 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone ahead and made the changes you've suggested so far. JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above with March 4, 2008.
Above comments.
  • "Chains of Olympus, along with God of War: Ghost of Sparta, was remastered" >> "were remastered"
Okay.
Okay. JDC808 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • "both normal and quick-time, platforming and puzzle game elements." I think a "with" is missing before "platforming"
Fixed.
  • The last sentence of the third paragraph is missing a reference and i consider it to be kind of controversial.
I believe you meant the fourth paragraph. Found a reliable source.
Plot
  • "he is sent to the city of Attica to help defend the city" avoit the second usage of "city" of another pronoun like "it", so it doesn't get redundant.
Fixed.
  • "Kratos fights his way" As his name was used half a sentence before, change it for "He" as we are undoubtedly talking bout him. Do the same with the following sentence, which also starts with "Kratos".
Done.
  • As a general comment, i see that most sentences on the first paragraph starts with "Kratos did x"; this style of prose breaks the flow each time a sentence is read. I consider to slightly rewrite the text to give it a more flowing appearance, so it is more kind when read.
I've went through and tried to avoid using Kratos at the start of the sentences. How is it now?
  • "Eventually locating the Temple of Persephone..." >> "After eventually locating the Temple of Persephone..."
Fixed.
Characters
  • Mainly the same comment as the one i made before. The prose flow needs work.
How is it now?
Audio
  • I think that the title should be changed to be more specific. Also, as this talks about the voice actors, i think it would fit better under Development.
I had used the example from Batman: Arkham Asylum (which point 10 of section 3.3 at WP:VG/GL cited as a good example) which is why I used "Audio" as the title and placed the section where it's at. I've changed the title to "Voice over", unless there's a better title that can be used. JDC808 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and think that "Voice" is better, but you can leave it as you wish. Regards. —Hahc21 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's work on this before continuing with the following sections. Regards. —Hahc21 03:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the changes have been beneficial, and in most case have only required minor tweaking. Note the language changes. There is, however, no need to modify the Characters section. Minor foes do not warrant a mention, and certainly don't feature in many other game articles. The Voice Over section is also superfluous as the aforementioned section covers this. Bluerim (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please review what has been stated in the GA review (this is a review by someone who has never contributed to this article and is reviewing to see if we can make this a GA article). Also, character list are inappropriate for video games and should be done as prose (see Batman: Arkham Asylum and WP:VG/GL point 10 of section 3.3). No references in lead sections as they are explained more and sourced later in the article. I have also been editing the other articles in accordance with this GA review. Please comply with the GA review and any policies that I've referenced (repeatedly). JDC808 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another spot to point out in regards to characters is here. I had a Third Opinion sought in regards to the matter of the character sections. Again, please make edits that are in compliance with this GA review. If you have a disagreement, bring it up on here BEFORE editing so that it does not interfere with the GA review and cause confusion with the reviewer. JDC808 (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what research you (Bluerim) have done (probably not GA, FA articles, or even guidelines for that matter), but a blank section will easily fail a GA review. I will point it out one last time before seeking further action to this consistent matter. See section 3.3, point 10 of WP:VG/GL which cites Batman: Arkham Asylum (a GA article) as a good example to use for the Characters and Voice-over (titled Audio there) sections. Batman does a prose section for the characters AND the next paragraph talks about other characters that were referred to or briefly seen throughout the game. JDC808 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been brought into line with the articles in the Final Fantasy series, many of which have been Featured and have excellent formatting. This is the way to go and with this model the GOW articles will start to pass muster. Also note that one other very experienced games editor has removed an unnecessary section. I'd advise against reverting on him. Bluerim (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I have advised to not interfere with the GA review, which you blatantly did. I asked repeatedly and you have ignored it. I have also asked for you to discuss any disagreements or changes before editing so it does not interfere with the review or cause confusion with the reviewer. Like I stated in my edit summary, I am forced to take further action. JDC808 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)r[reply]

Secondary comment - given that we're using Batman: Arkham Asylum as a reference (which I worked heavily on) the "Voice-over" section should probably be renamed "Audio". I did this on the Arkham Asylum article so that the section could later add information on the composer and general recording and composition of the title, but never got around to it. That's why it never got moved to the development section in that article (and why I instinctively moved it in this one without thinking). While not a GA, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions represents a little better the focus I was going for. Having the section in development allows for overall expansion on the audio, and takes the focus away from being a "cast list" in prose form. I only mention this because you reference the article and I'm planning on making that change very soon. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this statement "Composer Gerard Marino has stated that this was the first cue written for the game basing it on concept art and screenshots of the game." makes an even better case for a dedicated audio section (or just a paragraph merge into the development section. --Teancum (talk)

  checkY Merger complete. For some reason the discussion was split between the GAN review and the regular talk page. I have merged it here. Please be sure to hit "Edit" only on Talk:God of War: Chains of Olympus#GA Review (which will forward to this page) to ensure the discussion is kept in one place for archival purposes. --Teancum (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually originally named it "Audio", but the reviewer suggested a rename and moving to development, which I brought up Batman as my reasoning for putting the section where it was at. Since there's a soundtrack section, should composition related information (like the statement you pointed out) be put there instead? JDC808 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would merge the Voice-over and Soundtrack section as a new Audio section and place it under development. --Teancum (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can agree, mainly for the fact that it's soundtrack was never commercially released like the other games were. Speaking of the other games, since their soundtracks were commercially released and have some reviews, should they have their own soundtrack section, or be merged with Audio as well? JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have been more clear. "Voice cast" and "soundtrack" should be one section, "Audio", with no sub-sections. "Audio" should then be a sub-section of "Development". Per WP:LAYOUT there isn't enough content there to justify its current layout. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, which may also satisfy the reviewers concerns with the section as well. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "(featured "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font)" the pas tense "featured" feels incorrect. Maybe better if you write "which featured" or "featuring" since you didn't stablished a tense in the phrase before the parenthesis to help it. Also, you can just delete the parentheses and write "featuring the wornd "PSP" inside the omega symbol along with the words 'coming soon' in the GoW font."
Took away parenthesis and reworded it to "featuring "PSP" in...". P.S. Was that a typo on wornd?
  • "and included a fluid and cloth simulator" >> "and including"
Fixed.
  • Note: I think that, as the soundtrack section is kind of shot to be level 2, why don't you move it as a level 3 subsection of Development?
I see you've noticed that Bluerim has made a new section based on Teancum's suggestions.
Release
  • "The collection is a remastered port of both games to the PS3 hardware" >> "for the PS3 hardware"
Fixed.
  • The last sentence is unsourced.
Now sourced.
Reception
  • I think that it will be better of you move all sales-related information to a subsection named "Sales", just as it is with Awards.
Bluerim took care of this.
  • "In September 2010, God of War: Chains of Olympus was listed number one on GamePro's "The 10 Best PSP Games" list.[54]" Better under awards?
Moved to awards.

Okey. Nothing else to note by now. I found no other issues on the article. I will be checking the references after the above issues are fixed. —Hahc21 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will get on it as soon as I can, if no one else begins. JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied several sections where the language was awkward, and implemented the suggestion above to move Sales to a separate section. I have also retained the Plot section with its sub-sections as it spells out everything nicely (works just fine for the Final Fantasy articles, most of which have been Featured articles). We just need to avoid any unnecessary minor details that smack of trivia (e.g. no need in Characters to mention what object Kratos obtains from who - here we talk in general terms about the characters, again as per FF). By the by, please note the administrators have had no issue with my editing the article. It we could move forward without any further blind reverts it would be appreciated. This article can then be used as a model for the others. Many thanks. Bluerim (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and to be honest, I like the reformatting you have done based on the FF games. My biggest issue was that you did not discuss it before you made the changes. Grant it, you left a post saying what you did, but you didn't allow a discussion to commence. Though true that the administrators did not have an issue with the situation I had brought up, they did, however, state they wish you would be more diplomatic on the talk page (keep this in mind). With that aside, good work.
Extra comments on content
  • I changed 'voice over' to 'voice cast', which seems much better
Alright.
  • Also, the new 'Audio' section seems pretty odd. I will be thinking about how it could be worked, since it's kind of weird as how it is now.
Okay. JDC808 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Teancum's suggestion, Audio is now a sub-section of Development with no sub-sections of its own. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Hahc21 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was asked to engage a bit more in the review on my talk page to settle a dispute on what content should be added (based on recent additions and reverts). I'll just say that it's good Wikipedia:Etiquette to hold off on major changes to the article during a GAN review. The two of you can (and probably should) discuss things after the GAN nomination is complete (whether passed or failed), but please hold off on major changes as edit wars will cause the article to immediately fail per GAN criteria #5 (see below). Also just be aware of WP:3RR, which basically states that after three reverts of edits no more disputed changes should take place without consensus on the talk page. That being said I don't have an opinion on whether the disputed edits should be added after the GAN review is finished. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was one of my concerns as it was a bit of a major edit, and the reviewer had already reviewed the section (Plot) as it previously was and stated what he thought should be fixed. It is also why I had tried to ask Bluerim to discuss the matter before making the changes. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait. I was checking the references. As all seems to be up to standard for me, i'll pass the article. —Hahc21 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

—Hahc21 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great. Thank you. It's been a pleasure working with you through this review. Maybe we'll meet again in another review. JDC808 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Always willing to help. I hope we eventually meet again on future reviews :). Regards. —Hahc21 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"small chamber"[edit]

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, the room the sex minigame takes place in is completely irrelevant. Doesn't need to be there. Яehevkor ✉ 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Common sense at last! That's a start. Bluerim (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be condescending Bluerim. The reason it was there was for consistency across the articles so each page wouldn't sound like it's the exact same thing. JDC808 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for Kratos vs the Basilisk[edit]

Just to be clear, I basically agree with Bluerim. My idea in the FAC comments was to find a source discussing the combat, and then add some text in the body of the article talking about it. Sometimes explanatory text for an image is good to just make it clear what the image is, but text about what it means can be in the article itself. As it stands, I do think it needs more written on it, and I would think a character as important as the Basilisk would get some reliable source mentions. —Torchiest talkedits 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. I am in agreement that more can be added to gameplay (so long as it is written in a clear, coherent fashion). Image boxes are simply snapshots to give the reader a feel for the game.

Bluerim (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead changes[edit]

I just wanted to post a note here saying I disagree with the recent changes to the article's lead, as they have removed necessary explanation of gameplay elements. Particularly, the phrase "The gameplay will be similar" is improper grammar. The gameplay is similar, as the game has been released for some time now. I'd suggest bringing ideas for changes to the talk page for discussion before making large rewrites to an article that has already reached FA status. —Torchiest talkedits 04:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have revised that section based on your comment. What was changed really just takes the clunkiness out of it. A slight concern that this article (and others) reached FA when there are a few corrections to be made. That said, we'll press on.

Bluerim (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no concern if you knew the reasons. As Torchiest said, you removed necessary explanation of gameplay elements, which is also shrinking that paragraph below standard length. You're removing valid information elsewhere (Setting). You're now tagging the article for your own endeavor of "expanding or major restructuring" of the article. You've indicated to me in the past that your writing is superior, but to tag the entire article is taking it too far, especially for an article of FA status. --JDC808 ♫ 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it to stop the knee-jerk reversions. Some changes can be made, and are reasonable. You should already be able to see that I'm phasing in suggestions to the changes being made. Nothing there is inflammatory and easily worked out. Bluerim (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop saying knee-jerk reversions. It's an old excuse. The tag looks more like you tagged it so only you can edit. Changes can be made, but what you've done has received disagreement, and not just by me. Suggestions (which I haven't given any) wouldn't need "phased in" if you wouldn't have changed things that didn't need changed (particularly in regards to removal of content). Rewording is one thing, but you removed valid and necessary information, and I don't know how you can justify what you've done as improvements, especially with obvious errors with what you've done to the paragraph in the lead. --JDC808 ♫ 07:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What errors would these be? Bluerim (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest pointed out the first one (below this post). The second one would be trying to cram all of that information into one sentence. The next error would be the second sentence. Most gamers could probably understand what that sentence meant, but a non-gamer who knows little to nothing about the PSP or PS2 controller is gonna have a hard time understanding what's being said and there's ambiguity in saying "fewer options". The last error would be how short you made that paragraph (only two sentences). If this was a short article, that might be acceptable, but being an article of good length and FA status, that is too short. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The gameplay is similar to previous games and focus on combo-based attack sequences" is another piece of improper grammar. I really think it would be best if you brought your concerns with the text here first, as I don't think the changes you made, in general, are improvements. I undid your changes to the second paragraph of the lead and rewrote it a bit, but the details are necessary there. I also think wholesale removal of an entire large paragraph in the setting section is probably not a great idea, but I've left that for now. Can you explain your reasoning for removing that much text? Finally, I'm removing the under construction tag, as it's not appropriate for a relatively new FA. We can discuss issues on the talk page without leaving that box at the top of the article. —Torchiest talkedits 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that paragraph should be added back (which I have done, as there wasn't any proper discussion to remove an entire paragraph's worth of information). With the removal of it, it removes all features of the locations. In regards to monsters, they are in the Setting to describe what's going on and what can be found in these environments. Common enemies don't need to be listed in a Character section. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

euros[edit]

euros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.226.92 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? --JDC808 ♫ 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on God of War: Chains of Olympus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riski[edit]

Good obat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.249.75 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_of_War:_Chains_of_Olympus&oldid=1207448889"