Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Overlord (2007 video game)

Overlord (2007 video game)[edit]

Contributors have made a great start on this article, but I get the feeling some guidance would be of benefit to all of us with an interest in this article. A few questions/notes:

The lack of a reception section is noted, as are the lack of references.
Are the character and minion sections OK to be laid out with bullet-points? I've always thought this was frowned upon but can someone confirm?
The demo/update sections - are these necessary/desirable? The forum link referenced in 'future updates' doesn't seem appropriate but can someone confirm?
Any other pointers would be much appreciated.

Thanks. QuagmireDog 11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnaLaguna[edit]

As you've said, sources are a big issue. Pretty much everything, unless it's common sense, needs a source. See WP:CITE.
Lists should be turned into encyclopedic prose whenever possible. For an example of how a prose-based character section is done look at Final Fantasy VII#Characters. See below for advice on the Minions section.

Would it be possible to merge the seven 'heroes' into a story section? They're basically faced one after each other and rarely show otherwise, with a few exceptions. The two mistresses, Gnarl and the Overlord himself are the actual characters that players spend their time with.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The character section should also be a subsection of the plot/setting section, which currently doesn't exist.
The "Updates" and "Demo" section should be merged into a section detailing the overall development. Overlord received a good amount of press coverage, so writing and citing such a section should not be difficult.

The demo vanished, but there's now a development section for patches and development details. QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a forum post "reliable", but this point could be debated. Even if some editors do consider the source reliable I'd suggest finding another source to avoid potential disputes. There must be an alternate source, on the game's official website or something similar, which says the same thing.

Another ref sourced half the statement, the other half can be culled or reffed in due course, thanks.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay appears to need a fair amount of work:

The multiplayer paragraph is fine, but it doesn't need its own subsection unless you have enough content to justify it. I'd suggest simply deleting the "multiplayer" heading.

Someone tightened it further, it looks just fine, subheading removed.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the early food quest example in paragraph three to be unnecessary. You would lose little by removing it.

Yes, it was redundant, removed.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph goes into a little too much detail for my liking (remember Wikipedia isn't a game guide).

This particular facet is causing a few headaches. The tower, its facilities and the ability to alter its appearance are all quite bigged-up in reviews, the game's documentation etc. Aside from running around controlling the Overlord and the minions at the same time, this is probably the biggest individual characteristic of the game. Not sure what I could do to un-guide .it.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, didn't realise it was so fundamental to the game. It still looks like some of it can be trimmed off; I'll have a go myself. UnaLaguna 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gameplay section seems to miss important points and feels incomplete. For example, paragraph two is the first to mention artefacts with no prior description of what they are.

Magic/artefacts/minions etc. are all intermeshed, splitting them up and discussing them in a way which leads from one to the next will be testing, it will be done. QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "minions" section should be merged with the gameplay section and condensed to a single paragraph. It's currently the most game-guide-esque section of the article and goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia entry.

Cut right down and merged. There needs to be a small mention of them clearing the path and traversing different terrain, but that's it - this can be done in a general way rather than listing each minion's exact uses, well spotted.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar games" section seem too trivia-esque to me. I think it should be deleted unless you can A) provide sources confirming the similarity and B) integrate it into the rest of the article, like the way Fable and Black & White have been mentioned.

Gone.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one screenshot should be included. Remember fair use rationales.
The lead section needs re-writing. See WP:LS and look at some video game featured articles for examples.
Is the game engine - graphics, physics and such - notable and source-able? If there's enough information consider adding a section about this. The same question applies to the game's music, voice actors and anything else of note.

At this stage I'd say no - the only thing that really sticks out is that the Overlord can be controlled like a typical third-person action game character, but that the minions can also be controlled seperately using the other stick, providing this is in gameplay I doubt the graphics etc. would warrant more detailed sections.QuagmireDog 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It just means less work :D UnaLaguna

Hope this helps, UnaLaguna 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does, thank you for your time. QuagmireDog 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work so far; the article's coming along nicely now. Thanks for adding updates (it's nice to know my Peer Review is appreciated). I added the article to my watchlist, so feel free to put any additional points up here or on its talk page and I'll address them. UnaLaguna 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]