Talk:Haunting Ground/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to alleviate the backlog of GANs, I guess I'll help out with this article. Looks like an interesting game.

Lead

Honestly, no real complaints, but I do remember reading somewhere that quotes in the lead must be referenced even if they're referenced later, so add the references to "disturbing" and "off-putting".
- OK, added

Gameplay

When some locations are approached, a message will appear notifying the player they can hide there. Other locations will allow Fiona to retaliate against her enemy rather than hide, although some of these locations can only be used once. I'm confused by the last sentence. Is it saying that Fiona can hide in a closet, then jump out and attack her enemy? Regardless, I think this sentence needs to be reworded.
- I see, some locations are "hiding spots" like closets or under beds, while others are more like retaliation points where Fiona can use tools or the environment to attack back at her pursuer. I tried re-writing the sentence without diverging from the source.
This is just a minor nitpick, but the section doesn't state that Fiona can die. It does mention what's happens when she takes a lot of damage, but not that she can die from enough damage. You may want to mention that.
- Good point. I'll have to check my manual and add it this weekend. Edit pending...Edit done.

Plot

While visiting her parents, a car accident occurs, after which she awakes in a cage in the dungeon of a castle. I recommend rewording to "While visiting her parents, she is involved in a car accident, and awakens in a cage in the dungeon of a castle." The way the sentence is right now doesn't necessarily state that Fiona was in the accident, just that an accident occurred.
- Done
The way in which the player defeats Debilitas affects the ending of the game. So how does it affect the ending? It's never explained.
- I am just going to remove this detail because we are walking on the edge of WP:GAMEGUIDE. In traditional Clock Tower fashion, this game has too many alternate endings I don't want to get into.

Development

For such a well covered game that was reviewed by just about every reliable source, the development section seems a bit small. I did a cursory Google search of Haunting Ground interview, and while I didn't anything, I still think there are some sources out there that can be used to beef up the development section. However, if you can't find any more sources, then that's perfectly fine.
- Yea I've looked, and for me the development section is always the most intriguing. There's not much out there unfortunately. It was not heavily promoted and sold poorly. But due to its cult status it now sells for almost $100 used, go figure.
On 24 September 2004, developers debuted Haunting Ground under its Japanese name Demento, at the Tokyo Game Show after launching a teaser page on the Capcom website two days prior. A "the" appears to be using after 24 September 2004.
- Changed developers to "Capcom"
In July 2012, Haunting Ground appeared to be slated for a PlayStation 3 re-release as a "PS2 Classic", having been rated by the ESRB with Sony Computer Entertainment named as the publisher. Did the ESRB not rate the original game? Why is it important to mention that the ESRB rated the re-release.
- The ESRB rating was the first clue that the game was A) being re-released B) being re-released in North America. Unfortunately it has only been re-released in Japan. I think ESRB evaluates re-releases instead of just giving the same rating they did last time, but I don't know.

Reception

I'll admit, the reception section isn't structured how I personally like it, but it does it's job, and summarizes what reviewers liked and disliked, and that's all you can ask for in a GA review.
- I know what you mean, and I agree. I have debated redoing this section, and I may down the road. But I haven't had time yet.
Other critics also praised the use of Hewie. Just Adventure called him "adorable" and "an asset of the utmost value,"[33] whilst 1UP named him "one of the best-implemented efforts" of a dog in video gaming. It should be 1UP.com, not just 1UP.
- fixed
The entirety of the third paragraph feels unnecessary. The three reviews are from newspapers that don't specialize in video game reviews, and it doesn't add much that the other more reliable reviews already said. I honestly would like to see the paragraph removed altogether, as well as the newspaper review scores at the bottom of the review table.
- I agree about removing the paragraph. But should the ratings be kept per WP:VGAGG because they are "coverage from outside traditional video games media". When I rewrite the section, I can add their comments that add value and nothing more.
Not an issue, but wow, that last paragraph was very well written, good job!
- Thanks but credit goes to the author of the article for providing an incredible analysis. Truly one of the best sources here.

Overall, a well written article about a seemingly forgotten survival horror game. I'll come back tomorrow with a reference check. Once all of my issues are addressed, I feel this article will be ready for that GA icon every editor covets. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed most points i think except one i'll touch on this weekend. Thanks for picking up this review! I sure do covet that GA icon. TarkusAB 01:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, touched on last point. TarkusAB 22:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little late on the source review, but hey, better late than never :)

There are a number of problems with the formatting of the references: Refs 15 and 28 don't have authors; the linking of articles such as IGN and Gamespot in the refs is off (like refs 6 and 11); the dating temporarily switches from mm-dd-yyyy to dd-mm-yyyy (like refs 1 and 16, same goes for the release dates in the development section); sometimes the author is listed by first name last name while other times it's last name first name (refs 1 and 16 again); Kill Screen and Just Adventure need to be linked in refs 16 and 33; finally, avoid WP:SHOUTING in ref 10. Other than formatting issues, I checked out the online refs, and everything was solid. Once the formatting issues are addressed, I'll happily promote the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK all authors accounted for and switched to last, first format. Removed ref 28. Changed date format to mm-dd-yyyy article wide. All websites linked in refs. Removed Shouting in ref 10. If I missed anything feel free to fix yourself or let me know. TarkusAB 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, everything looks to be in order, now it's time to pass this article. Nice job! Famous Hobo (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section relies way too heavily on quotes as it's written—the vast majority should be paraphrased czar 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment about that earlier in the review, but since Tarkus says he'll go back and work on the reception section, I decided it was okay to pass the article with the reception section like that. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a little late but this sections has been completely overhauled. TarkusAB 23:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]