Talk:God of War: Ghost of Sparta

Orphaned references in God of War: Ghost of Sparta

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of God of War: Ghost of Sparta's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN":

• From Kratos (God of War): Ivan Sulic (2005-03-18). "Reviews: God of War". IGN. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
• From God of War III: Roper, Chris (2010-03-08). "God of War III Review - PlayStation 3 Review at IGN". IGN. Retrieved 2010-03-08.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 125.7.71.6

Some of your edits are misleading as well as giving wrong information, or not completely truthful information. Several edits also make me wonder if you have even played the game, becuase you're reverting correct information to incorrect information.

Examples from last revision:

After a battle with Erinys, the daughter of Thanatos, Kratos arrives in Sparta and witnesses a group of Spartans tearing down a statue of Ares 1. (info you've taken out). After a battle with the 2. Piraeus Lion and an encounter with the spirit of his child self in the Temple of Ares, Kratos learns he must return to Atlantis and locate the Domain of Death. Kratos accepts his former weapons, the Arms of Sparta (used during Kratos' days as a Captain of the Spartan army), as a gift from 3. the Spartans and departs.

1. Why take out the mention here? They tore down the statue so they can replace it with one of Kratos. Several times you've reverted this to say they're replacing it during games time when they aren't. They tore it down so they "can" replace it.

2. Why not link Piraues Lion?

3. The "Spartans" didn't give him the weapons. The Spartan, who is credited as the Last Spartan, gives them to him. Indicating which Spartan helps the readers understand why the Last Spartan is in the Characters section.

Entering the Domain of Death, Kratos eventually locates his imprisoned brother Deimos and frees him. Enraged that Kratos failed to rescue him sooner and stating he will never forgive Kratos, Deimos attacks 1. Kratos, but the god Thanatos - responsible for Deimos' torture - intervenes. Thanatos takes Deimos against his will to Suicide Bluffs (the site of Kratos' suicide attempt) where Kratos saves Deimos from falling to his death. A grateful Deimos the aids Kratos in battling the god. Thanatos kills Deimos but is destroyed in turn by Kratos. Kratos buries Deimos (leaving the Arms of Sparta as a grave marker) and is warned by the enigmatic Grave Digger who once aided him not to alienate the gods.

1. Deimos doesn't just attack Kratos, he battles him until Thanatos comes.

Athena begs for forgiveness 1. (offering godhood and even 2. acknowledging Kratos as her brother) for not revealing the truth, but Kratos ignores her, returning to Olympus promising that "the gods will pay for this."

1. Athena does not offer godhood. Kratos is already a god now. She comes to give him the full powers.

2. She doesn't acknowledge him as her brother right then and there. When Kratos is going back through the portal to Olympus, that's when she acknowledges him as her brother and he does not hear her say it, so what you have there is a little misleading.

In a post-credits scene, the Grave Digger places Callisto in her grave and states "Now...only one remains."

This is NOT the only thing that happens after the credits. Several edit summaries I have said this, yet you keep reverting it.

• Mark Deklin as Deimos (Bridger Zadina as Young Deimos): The brother of Kratos 1. with unusual birthmarks. The victim of a prophecy that actually referred to Kratos, Deimos initially resents Kratos for not rescuing him after a period of torture in the Domain of Death, but eventually aids his brother against Thanatos.

1. Why is this unnecessary as you claim? This is an integral part of the story.

• Fred Tatasciore as Lanaeus: A minion of Poseidon who attempts to prevent Kratos from reaching his goal in the sunken Atlantis.

Either you've played the game and have forgotten the first time Kratos encounters him or you haven't played the game and are assuming this is what is correct. This is half correct. Kratos encounters Lanaeus twice. The first time is right before he frees Thera. The second time is in the sunken Atlantis.

Removal of Zeus.

Why?

129.71.208.91 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some corrections after checking of facts, but you seem to be obsessing over micro-details. There's a mention of most things in the necessary context, without unnecessary extrapolation.

Is it ever stated Kratos battle the Piraeus Lion? Yes, when Kratos battles the lion in the Spartan jails, it says "Piraeus Lion" across the screen. Also, the Last Spartan isn't the LS at the time of this story. True, and I like the clarification that you made there. Also no difference between attacks and battles here as obvious. There is a small correction (all that was needed) to Athena's statement. The rest is subjective, a tad fannish and not really needed. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this came together nicely, at least for the most part. Left my comments in bold in your paragraph. JDC808 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"frees the Titan Thera"

I played the game, and Kratos certainly didn't free Thera from her bonds.

What the cutscene shows is, Kratos talks to Thera, says he wasn't there to free her, Thera says he must help her. Then the player resumes control of Kratos and throws his blades into her, pulls them out and gains the Thera's Bane power, Thera screams in pain, and as Kratos leaves, Thera reaches up and collapses the stone bridge/path he is on.

How does that imply he freed her? I interpreted this as him stealing her power and leaving her to remain imprisoned, and she destroys the bridge in an attempt to get back at him. 69.38.205.7 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He frees her from the exact scene you just said. She asked for freedom, he at first refused. She told him she could give him her power if he frees her, so Kratos does free her to gain that power. JDC808 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Except she wasn't free, she was still chained there. The exact dialogue from the game is:

"THERA: Do not be so naive, Kratos. Your path led you to me. You need my help.
 KRATOS: I need nothing from you, Thera.
 THERA: If you do not free me then you will share my fate. You will die here with me."

Then Kratos obtains her power using the blades. Is she freed? No. She is still chained there. You say she is freed. If she is in fact freed, why is she still there, and why did she reach up and break the path he was on? The answer is simple: she was not freed, and as she said, if Kratos did not free her then he would die with her, which is why she reached up and tried to kill him by collapsing his path.69.38.205.7 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is freed. Look at the last Thera quote. Thera said, "If you do not free me then you will share my fate. You will die here with me." So Kratos, not wanting to die there with her, frees her. And this freeing is not freeing so she could get out of the prison and roam the world or wherever freely, this freeing is to release her from this world. Kratos' act does just that. She smashes the bridge because she's trying to break free. I in no way took it as if she was trying to kill Kratos and I doubt many others did either (I could be wrong). Do not keep reverting, discuss until a consensus is met. I am reverting your edit to put it back at the current consensus, after which I will not revert this edit again until a new consensus is met. JDC808 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with JDC. The Titan states "Free me". Kratos does so, and the path begins to disintegrate as the Titan is moving. The player as Kratos has to have time to get out of the area. Unfortunately, I think you are looking for something that really isn't there. Let's try not to have any more arguments about unnecessary micro-detail. Thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, JDC, that he "freed" her from this world, but the article does not say this, and it needs to be changed to reflect this. The way "frees" is used in the article's context implies that he physically released her from her restraints, which he did not do. And in no way is this an "unnecessary micro-detail", it's how Kratos obtains a major ability, and freeing a captive and putting someone out of their misery are two very different things. Let's try to remember that the idea is to stay as true to the plot as possible. 69.38.205.7 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading into it too much. What is there is sufficient and doesn't belabour the point. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

She is indeed freed by Kratos,and as he freed her she gives Kratos her power.She collapses the bridge in an attempt of getting out of her prision.The game is very clear about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Know-howpt (talk • contribs) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Installment issue

You are misreading the information given. From your edit summary, you said it says second and sixth in the same sentence. This is true, but it does not say it was the second and sixth God of War for the PSP, it says it's the second for the PSP and the sixth installment to the series, meaning it was the second God of War developed for the PSP and the sixth God of War developed in the entire series. Also, installment does not mean chapter. Installment means its release order in the series (6th installment = 6th developed game for the series), whereas Chapter, which you added, means its chronological order (3rd chapter = 3rd chronologically). JDC808 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not misreading at all. You are still trying to add unnecessary detail to a largely finished product. You are still adding two numerical terms in one sentence - which is confusing - and ignoring the navbox, which clearly states release order. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This "unneccesary detail" that you claim has been there since the day the page was created (or just about) until now when you're trying to remove an established consistancy across all the articles. No one has complained about it before until you, which you're the only one.

It is not confusing if you read it clearly. What is confusing about it saying it's the second God of War on the PSP and the sixth God of War in the series? Nothing. It clearly states that it's the second God of War developed for the PSP and the sixth God of War developed in the series (PSP and series aren't the same). I am not ignoring the navbox, I'm just not putting emphases on a box that few readers see because it's located at the bottom of the page. JDC808 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just revamped the leads so they are now all consistent. I don't why you assume someone wouldn't see the nav box: people read from top to bottom. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues

Examples:

1. The sex mini-game also returns and has been described as the "most over-the-top" in comparison to previous installments (an encounter with two women with more and more women jumping in as the mini-game progresses).

Two things wrong here - unsourced claim and casual and unnecessary language.

Source - Okay (which is already sourced in the reception).

2. "battles the scylla".

There's only one - unique creature - and has a capital.

Okay?

3. The Thera mention. "Original game creation" in brackets covers it.

"Original game creation" can work but doesn't give enough info. These games are based on Greek mythology, it should be noted she is not of the mythology.

The lead states the game is based on Greek myths. Bluerim (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Doesn't mean we can't give clarification.

4. The abilities that Kratos may gain belong in Game Development - Character section is for the characters' roles - not a place to cite technical points that are GD by their very nature.

You mean "Gameplay" section? The things Kratos gains for the characters are part of their role. It's one of their two main reasons for being in the games.

The purpose of the Character section is to describe their primary role - a mention of minor points such as abilities belongs in the same (ie. Gameplay) section that describes Kratos' abilities (ie. weapons and magic) as they relate directly to said character. Hence, ALL mention of such things belongs there. Thank you. Bluerim (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Find me a Wikipedia policy that states that, THEN, I'll agree. JDC808 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The sex game analysis certainly needs to die in a fire. Яehevkor ✉ 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay??? JDC808 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One reviewer's opinion (uses "arguably the most over-the-top of the bunch", hardly concrete) of the sex mini game is not appropriate for a gameplay section, source doesn't describe the game either. Maybe mention it in the reception section.

It is completely appropriate for the section if it's something that stands out. JDC808 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The section is about gameplay, not one reviewer's opinion. That's why we have the reception section. Яehevkor ✉ 10:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, if it's something that stands out, it is acceptable to feature a descriptive quote for why it stands out. Yes it's their opinion, which is why it says has been described as meaning someone thought this. JDC808 (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The view that it stands out is in itself an opinion, gameplay section should adhere to WP:NPOV; containing facts only. Яehevkor ✉ 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:God of War: Ghost of Sparta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

Lead

• Will go back to this later

Gameplay

• "it features a fixed camera from the third-person view" >> "it features a third person fixed camera view"

Fixed.

• "The game features new weapons, magical powers" >> "It additionally features new weapons, magical powers"

Fixed.

• "gameplay than its PSP" >> "gameplay that its handheld"

• I consider that "handheld" is a more general word.

Fixed.

• "Kratos acquiring an addition weapon" >> "acquiring an additional weapon"

Fixed (not sure how I missed that).

• "and in this game acts as the "Rage" feature."

• Could we elaborate a little more to give the reader a more general apporach as to what is the rage feature?

Added a tidbit to the end of the sentence. Does it need more elaboration?

• "return and are found in plain, non-colored chests."

• What does "return" means here? :)
• Oh i think what deos it mean now, but i think you'd have to rewrite the sentence, as it is quite confusing. Also, pointing that it is a returning feature from a past game is quite needless, i think.

Made it "return from previous installments." I like the idea of informing about returning features. It's a nice little extra thing to know, at least I think. --JDC808 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Development

• ""state-of-the-art visual technologies" that allow" >> shouldn't it be "allowed"?
• "members received early access to the demo." >> "to it" instead of "to the demo"

Fixed.

Release

• Good

Reception

• "storytelling and sheer wow factor" >> "wow factor"?

It's part of the quoted text. I believe it's referring to how the games have those "wow" moments.

• Game Informer should go italiziced

Italicized.

Soundtrack

• " (41 minutes and 8 seconds in length)" you have it on the infobox.

Removed (forgot to remove that when I added the infobox). --JDC808 ♫ 03:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

References

• Will check them later. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see different date formats, keep consistency.

Are you referring to how the article date format is different from the accessdate format?

What I say is that you must keep the same date format throughout all the article. But you can chose different formats for the article body and the references. The issue is that several dates and accessdates within the references have different formats. An example:

• Pereira, Chris (October 25, 2010). "God of War: Ghost of Sparta Review". 1UP. News Corporation. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
• Evans, Shawn (June 21, 2010). "E3’10: God of War: Ghost of Sparta hands-on impressions – Kratos fanboys rejoice!". Gamer Limit. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

There is two different formats there. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The formatting was actually brought up in the FAC for Chains of Olympus. They said (as per MOS:DATEUNIFY) that the date of the article should be spelled the same as the articles text (e.g. June 21, 2010 or 21 June 2010) and should be consistent but the accessdate can use that or the hyphenated format that's currently there (and be consistent amongst those). --JDC808 ♫ 04:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Most references seem to be perfect, although, i see some with work/publisher and other with only the work. If you can add the publisher for the most references as possible, it would be better. Of course, this is not required for GA.

When checking for the publisher on those few, it had the same name as the work (e.g. Game Limit is the publisher and also the work. Do I have to list it twice?)

No, in that case, you only write it once :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else to note. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

Ok. So, I think all have been fixed, so here's my verdict.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks again. :) --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A-Class assessment

Requesting assessment for A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 04:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Of course. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Style and tone edits

Hi @JDC808:,

Concerning my edits, let's break it down.

• "The player controls the character Kratos (...) and battles foes who primarily stem from Greek mythology, including minotaurs, cyclopes, harpies, Gorgons, and satyrs." Period, full stop. Next sentence "The undead legionnaires, keres wraiths, geryons, automatons, Boreas beasts, and Triton warriors were influenced by mythology, but created specifically for the game." The first round of foes "primarily stem" from Greek mythology, the second round "were influenced by mythology, but created specifically for the game". How were they "influenced"? How do they differ from the the first group? Wasn't the first group created for the game too? Or is the Minotaur in Ghost of Sparta somehow more true to its Greek origin than the automatons? I wouldn't consider this to be self-explanatory.
  • The first group are creatures that actually appeared in Greek mythology, whereas the second group are original monsters inspired by the mythology.
• "[[Platform game|platforming]], and [[Puzzle video game|puzzle game]]" is inconsistent - now it's "platforming" and "puzzle game" elements. Why mention "game"? Isn't a puzzle a game in the first place? Or instead, why not mention platform game, together with puzzle game, instead of platforming?
  • Several eyes in the FAC review process (and copy-editing) never had an issue with this, and it just comes off very awkwardly in the wording to not have "game" there, and it would be a bit redundant to put "game" after both.
• For "first", the game was released for PSP, later remastered for PS3, which is mentioned in the third paragraph in the lead. That's a long time to harken back to that initial "first". I'd say the initial release was the release, later ones were remasters. Or were the games developed concurrently?
  • That's not what I meant at all. It wasn't released worldwide for the PSP on November 2. It was first released in North America on November 2, followed by other countries over that next week. We don't list every country's release date in the lead, hence the word first. This was something that was agreed upon awhile back when bringing these articles up to standard.
• For "still", saying Kratos is "still haunted" makes no difference in tone than from saying Kratos is "haunted". Imagine a reader unfamiliar with God of War, the use of "still" does not automatically imply he was haunted in previous entries too, or in what way, or why.
  • Actually it does. An unfamilar reader would for one read that this isn't the first game based on a preceding sentence, and two, it tells them that this kind of torment is something carrying over from past games. --JDC808 ♫ 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is of course nitpicking, but that's what I do here. I'd suggest expanding some of these sentences so they make more sense, or trim the fluff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)