Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

:Hello, the article looks pretty good. Check in here for the review. Thanks.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Usually the lead section in a video game is: First paragraph=Intro information including publishers, developers, release dates and such. Second paragraph=Gameplay and short plot information. The stuff in the backstory section could be moved to the second paragraph but we'll get in to that later. Third paragraph=Reception and sequels or new versions Post-Release.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The publication and reception needs to be split into a "Reception" and then a "Development" section. And there needs to be a lot more on Reception. See Lost Planet's section for help. Plus, there needs to be a full plot section. Not just a backstory.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Though the gameplay section is very good, it also is very long. The whole article is based on the gameplay section. The section need to be MAJORLY condenced.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
You have a week to work on this article. After that, the article will either be passed on failed.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response[edit]

To some extent we'll have to work out the rules for this genre during this review - up front, as far as possible. As far as I can see the video games GAs include no turn-based or 4X games, nor do the video games FAs. In particular the articles on more recent space-based 4X games are in poor shape (Galactic Civilizations and its descendants; the members of the Space Empires series; Master of Orion III; and Sword of the Stars), as are those on the Civilization (series) and on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which are planet-based 4X; and those on the Heroes of Might and Magic series, which are TBS but generally not considered 4X, are also poor. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As 4X points out, this genre is very different, with much more complex gameplay and UI. For example StarCraft, an FA, and Age of Empires (video game), a Jan 2009 GA, give similar coverage of gameplay in % terms, but their "Gameplay" sections are much shorter simply because these games are simpler - success in these largely depends on reflexes, manual dexterity and multi-tasking ability, while a TBS is more like Chess (the TBS genre originated from board games). The "gameplay" aspects of Chess are quite long but even so quite sketchy, and rely on daughter articles for the details. However I think that would be over-the-top for MOO II, which doesn't have 300 years of theoretical literature and over 1,000 years of development history behind it. :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no plot. MOO II maps are randomly-generated, and there are no pre-defined missions. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about "Development", but it will be a lot less elaborate than Lost Planet's section, for a bunch of historical reasons. I think Age of Empires (video game) is a better guide to what to expect, as it was released only a year later than MOO II - and the development section of Age of Empires (video game) is fairly short. AFAIK game genres and mechanics haven't changed much since 2000, so competition in a crowded marketplace is largely about finding cooler themes and flashier graphics, and then promoting like crazy long before launch. In addition computer tech has moved on, with players using much more powerful systems and developers using very clever software, e.g. to analyse movies of actors and abstracts them into wireframes that anatomical models can then animate, and "colouring" programs that can work out what parts of an game object's cours are visible from the current viewpoint and in the current lighting. In the mid-1990s game development was still emerging from its "cottage industry" phase, game genres had emerged but were less defined than they are to-day, and game mechanics still varied a lot within genres. And the amount of artwork MOO II carried (about 350MB, according to one review, IIRC) was far too much for contemporary consoles, so PC was the only sensible platform - there was no need for a debate about platforms, as there was with [[Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Reception":
- I'm not sure whether sales figures were ever available, and hold out little hope that they're available now - I'll recheck the Atari web site (the current owner), but it's a forlorn hope. I note that Age of Empires (video game), a recent GA about a game released a year later, has no sales figures. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I deliberately cut back on quotes from specific reviews, because IMO what matters is: the overall response; the variation in reviewers' opinions of specific aspects; the fact that MOO II is still the gold standard for space-based 4X games. I could get URLs of reviews from Metacritic and then try Internet Archive, and then quote a few, but I'm not sure how much that would help readers.
- I can add Moby's ranking of the DOS version (7 reviews). But I'm not sure about the usefulness of adding other aggregators. Gamerankings' score is based on only 5 reviews, and Gamestats' score for the PC version is based on only 1. Moby's pages on the Win version the Mac version give no score, nor does Gamestats' page about the Mac version. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I can understand about the gameplay section but I'm still sure it can be condenced, next as far as Development it can be short. But even with Age of Empires, though there may not be sales numbers but you could still add review boxes. Like you said, theres only a year difference.--Next-Genn-Gamer 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at condensing "Gameplay" in a draft at User:Philcha/Sandbox/MOO_II#Game_play_.28v2.29. As far as I can see removing further info causes the Gameplay section to unravel. Please let me know of any places where you think the phrasing can be more concise. --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added review box. BTW between my edits of the review box, someone moved the publication & reception stuff below gameplay. I think that's a reasonable idea: the lead makes the point about the reception, and fiction artciles start with plot summary. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artichoker[edit]

Hi, just had a look at the article, and it's pretty good. There are a couple points I have which you could perhaps address.

Firstly, I did a little bit of reorganization to allow this article to fit more into a conventional video game article format. I hope you agree with my edits.
I agree with NGG that the "Gameplay" section indeed needs to be reduced. I think an easy way to condense it would be to cut down on the listcruft. Not every single item on a particular aspect of the game needs to be mentioned (i.e. colonizable planet factors, technology types, playable races.) Once that has been complete, I think the "User interface" section should be merged into "Gameplay", as the UI is part of the gameplay.
I'm concerned that this article uses too many copyrighted images. I count six (6) which is almost unheard of. I'm not sure of any other video game/media article that even comes close using that amount of non-free images. Perhaps several of the less-important images could be removed.

That's all for now. Artichoker^[talk] 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Artichoker, thanks for commenting. Re the points you raised:

Your headings structure is fine for this article, thanks - with 1 exception: "Backstory" was more accurate as it describes prior events in-universe; most of this is presented in the manual as an excerpt from a history article by some galactic institute, see refs. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See draft of "Gameplay" at User:Philcha/Sandbox/MOO_II#Game_play_.28v2.29. Best to comment here, as I'll get the draft deleted some time. As I mentioned above, there are no precedents for articles about 4X games, and their gameplay is much more complex than in the shooters and adventure games that account for most VG GAs and FAs, and a lot more complex than that of RTSs such as Starcraft or even the mutli-epoch Age of Empires (video game). --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of images is based on the complexity of the gameplay. I don't think Atari will object, their product is getting a good write-up in one of the world's busiest sites (I saw a discussion in the last 2 days about it being the top ten for hits from Google). If you really want to scrap an image, I suggest cutting the box art, as it's way out of date (now sold only as download!) and uninformative - in that case I would not move one of the others into its place in the infobox, as they are needed to illustrate points in the text. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the rewrite in your sandbox, and it's a start, although I would say more of the listcruft could be cut (e.g. the types of technologies, and the planets) Also, what do you say about my suggestion to merge the "User interface" section into "Gameplay"? Artichoker^[talk] 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Artichoker - I didn't notice your comment about the UI - I'm doing 2 GA reviews myself at present, my Talk page keeps shouting at me, etc. Whingeing apart, I don't think merging "Gameplay" and "UI" is a good idea. Apart from the size of the combined section, the gameplay is a set of rules, rather like those of chess, while the UI is part of a computer implementation of the rules - remember that 4X games partly grew out of and still trade ideas with board games. TBS are fundamentally different from RTS, FPS, adventure, etc. in that respect. You could play most 4X games on a board with dice, apart from one thing: boards show the entire map and all enemy forces. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the names of techs as they're now just names, and combined the resulting short first para w the next. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the few remaining planet details would be bad, as these illustrate the need to think about what you colonise. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about you wanting to keep the Gameplay and UI sections separate; however, most video game articles integrate the control mechanics and UI into the gameplay section. But I won't object further if you would like to keep the sections separate. And I suppose if you think the Gameplay section in your sandbox can't be reduced further without losing valuable information, then go ahead and use that one in the article, as it is a lot better than the current version. Artichoker^[talk] 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead I noticed you have not yet addressed NGG's suggestions for improving the lead. As he said, generally the first paragraph is for "[i]ntro information including publishers, developers, release dates and such", the second paragraph should address gameplay and plot, and the third should be for reception. The stub paragraph in the lead that mentions the sequel should be outright removed, as it is not important. Artichoker^[talk] 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both as an editor and as a reviewer I leave the lead until last, when all the content it's supposed to summarise is stable.

I confess that as a reader I'd find the lead less interesting if it started with all the "bibliographical" information - in just the same way as I don't care about a library book's Dewey decimal number, I care about its content. The potential audience for this article is gamers, most of whom are not also librarians. As a gamer I want to know: its genre (if it's one I don't care for, I go elsewhere); whether it's any good; and whether I can play it, which is a significant point in the case of MOO II. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first paragraph should certainly mention the basic info about the game, including its genre and system. Artichoker^[talk] 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coldmachine[edit]

I see that a pass has been issues for the 2nd criteria ("Factually accurate and verifiable") but noticed that ~42 of the first 50 references are from the game manual which is not a third party reliable source. Are there any other sources which could be used? Coldmachine^Talk 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs to the manual all support factual statements about elements of the game play, rather than commentary on the game's quality or importance. There are no complaints about the accuracy of the manual in any review I've seen nor anywhere else that I've seen. Hence for description of the game play the manual is a reliable source as well as the most comprehensive. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha may be off WP from 23 June to 3 July[edit]

I'm moving house on Friday 26 June, and may be off WP from 23 June to 3 July. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you could address the lead by that time, that would be great. Have fun moving, Artichoker^[talk] 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read the lead and it still works for me. As far as I can see the main issue is over the order of the 2nd & 3rd paras. To me the publication info in the first para (published 1996, still played online), raises the question "is it any good by modern standards?" The fact that it's still played online suggests it is but is not conclusive, as some mediocre games have retained long-term followings - for example IIRC there was an active forum (strategies, favourite / most powerful races and techs, etc.) for Ascendancy (video game) (published 1996) until some time in 2007. So the 2nd para (reception) gives the answer, "it's still the gold standard in its genre". In general I try to anticipate a potential reader's questions in the lead, to encourage them to read further, and give that priority over following a pattern for its own sake. If the lead were long and fairly complex (as at some biology articles I've improved), I'd see a stronger reason for standardisation, but Master of Orion II's lead is pretty short. --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as that goes, I agree. What I propose is simply that you switch paragraphs 2 and 3, and remove paragraph 4. Artichoker^[talk] 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "As far as that goes, I agree" and then suggest I switch paragraphs 2 and 3. Is that a self-contradiction or am I missing something? --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why cut para 4? --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops sorry I misspoke. I meant to say you didn't need to switch the paragraphs. However, I do think that paragraph 4 should be cut because, as I said before, it's a stub paragraph and not important enough to the topic to be mentioned in the lead. (or if you have to, merge it into paragraph 1) Artichoker^[talk] 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed para 4 - MOO 3 was the black sheep any way. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'd say barring any other concerns, the article can be passed once NGG returns from his wikibreak. Artichoker^[talk] 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]