Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout (video game)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [1].

Fallout (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a role-playing video game released for the PC in 1997 by Interplay Productions. It was a critical success and was praised for its unique setting and gameplay. The game was quite pivotal in the history of role-playing games, as it was one of the games credited for renewing interest in role-playing video games when the genre was dying off in the West. It spawned a series that still remains famous and successful to this very day. The current year is 2022, making it the 25th anniversary of Fallout. I plan to make this today's featured article on October 10, 2022, to celebrate this anniversary. I have worked on this article since April 2021 and made a successful good article nomination in July 2021. I returned to improving this article further in March 2022 upon realizing that this year is the 25th anniversary. It has received a peer review and a copyedit from WP:GOCE. I now believe it is ready for a featured article candidacy. Feel free to leave down any comments pertaining to the improvement of this article in preparation for featured article status. Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—except for the one I removed, the images look OK (t · c) buidhe 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I have added a screenshot I believe to be a better illustration of the game. What are your thoughts on it? Lazman321 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As demonstrated in the screenshot, much of the game revolves around the player choosing quests to accept from other characters." Again, seems replaceable with text since what is referred to here is the content of the dialogue. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if this was the only rationale for adding the screenshot, it could easily be replaced by text. However, as you can see from the non-free rationale on the file page, that is not the only rationale for adding this screenshot. The non-free rationale I added says it "illustrate[s] the dialogue in Fallout; particularly the user interface, the art style, the talking head, quest-giving, player choice, and Killian Darkwater himself." The illustration aspect is helpful, especially when considering how different the dialogue appears in the original Fallout compared to modern Fallout games and the fact that the rest of the game is in 2D. Without the screenshot, modern players looking at the page for the original game could be given a wrong impression of what dialogue looks like in the game, especially with the talking heads. Perhaps I should rewrite that sentence in the rationale and the caption of the image to demonstrate the illustration aspect better. Lazman321 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about comprehensiveness from Shooterwalker

I made some comments at peer review, and this article has come a long way in terms of its writing. But thinking about the comprehensiveness requirement under WP:FAC, I think the legacy section omits the influence of this game on other games. For example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey cites this game as an influence on its open world design (which is impressive considering the decades separating the two games). There's even more influence on contemporaries like Neverwinter Nights 2. A game like this has almost endless influence, which can be a daunting task to document and verify. But I think with a little bit of effort you could cover the broad strokes.

One strategy is to use the search engine at WP:VG/LRS to look for sources that are about other games, but decide to name drop Fallout.
Another strategy is to check the Wikipedia articles listed under "what links here", and look for articles about other games that might have a verifiable link to Fallout.
One last strategy is to check the List_of_video_games_considered_the_best#cite_note-183 and look for comments that further describe how this game is influential. This article already mentions them in the context of awards and accolades, but I think the same sources also have something to say about the game's influence on the RPG genre and the whole medium of video games.

I don't know if I will have time for a more thorough review, but based on the peer review, I think the prose is well on its way. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I have added more games to the legacy section. Your second suggestion was really useful for including more games that were influenced by Fallout. I would have never thought to use it, so thank you. I didn't include Assassin's Creed Odyssey however. This is because the interview listed in the article seems to be talking about the series as a whole rather than the original game; the in-source mention linked to Fallout 4. I wanted to mostly include games that were either influenced by the first game itself or the classic games. Lazman321 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about Assassin's Creed. The one-sentence list is a decent start, I think that readers would be interested to know where the influence is between these games. For example, was it the open world level design? Quest design? Skill system? It deserves at least a full paragraph, to really drive home what aspects of Fallout are part of its enduring influence. Especially if someone like Warren Spector had something to say about Fallout directly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking me to go through each game and describe how Fallout influenced them, I don't think that's necessary. There already is a paragraph in the legacy section dedicated to what aspects of Fallout were influential, which I think is sufficient. Besides, most of the sources do not mention how Fallout influenced them exactly, including the Warren Spector source. Detailing the ones that do would probably be adding undue emphasis on trivial details. Lazman321 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB

I'll aim to look at this in the next few days. Anyone else that wants to jump in before me feel free. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: It has been over a week. When are you going to start your review? Lazman321 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this hasn't pinged me for whatever reason or it was lost in a separate ping. Have all the oppositions been dealt with? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have addressed all the concerns raised so far in this candidacy and dealt with the problems raised. Lazman321 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an opening sentence that says it was released in North America in October 1997, and then the last sentence of the second paragraph states essentially the same. I worked on Spider-Man (2018 video game) and the date isn't mentioned until discussing release. I'm not mithered which way you go but it shouldn't be stated twice within a two-paragraph span.
Done: Removed the first mention of Fallout's in lead. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The copy editing still seems poor. I've tried to address a few glaring issues.
"The Vault Dweller may recruit four companions." Ok so is it UP to four, are their four named companions? Are we going to name them? It's a short stub sentence and then goes into other characters.
Done: There are only four companions in the game, and I have decided to list them. However, I am curious. Do you think I should remove the characters sub-section since no other Fallout game has such a section? Do you find it pointless? Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention the pip-boy until the characters/plot section. Is this not part of gameplay?
Done: I have mentioned it in the gameplay section. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are tonnes of just little stubby sentences that don't flow particularly well and don't make it necessarily interesting to read, for example "Development on Fallout began in early 1994.[35][36] The video game took three and a half years to complete and cost approximately $3 million.[37][38] Initially, Interplay gave the game little attention.[36]" The first two especially could be easily combined into "Development on Fallout began in early 1994 and took three and a half years to complete," or "The nearly three and a half year development of Fallout began in early 1994," or you can take the "The video game took three and a half years to complete and cost approximately $3 million.[37][38]" part and move it to the end where you mention the date of completion.
Point taken, and reading parts of it again, it does feel tedious. Alas I don't have enough energy to work on this, at least for a while. Ovinus (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally, each game of Fallout had a time limit of 500 days, which Taylor added to encourage the player to focus on the main story line, but the feature became controversial and was removed in a patch.[4][30]" I would move this to the gameplay section
Done kind of: The sources did not actually back up the 500-day time limit, so I rewrote the sentence to convey what was actually stated in one of the sources: Taylor added the time limit to keep the player focused on mainline quests. The 500-day time limit information was then moved to the gameplay section in a footnote with a source that backs up the information. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mention " The European version was released later on an unspecified date as version 1.2, which removed child characters to make it eligible for release in Europe." but no reason is given as to why this was an issue. I haven't played the original but I know this is something to do with you being able to kill children or slip grenades in their pockets or something.
Done: Clarified why it was a problem
"Fallout was highly well-received." Well-received seems fine on its own, "highly" sounds like puffery.
Done by someone else: Ovinus removed it after you posted your review. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the article needs more copy editing, and some things just need clarifying such as the kid murder censorship Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, I am way too involved in this article to be able to do an impartial copyedit. Perhaps, you could list your specific issues with the article so I can edit accordingly. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing a few of your points, yes in narrative heavy games I think character sections do belong. Sometimes they can be merged into setting, but if you check out the Spider-Man link I posted earlier, that's the general style i promote and follow. I'm going to take a look at copyediting the article if you don't mind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lazman321, you could do with adding to the characters section what Super Mutants are. I know what they are from the newer games but to someone without knowing it just drops "Super Mutants" in there without context. It doesn't have to be a repeat of what is in the plot section, just something along the lines of what they are physically post transformation, super strong, mostly unintelligent, whatever the easiest description of them is. EDIT: Also check out Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, this is one I worked on that is a bit more contemporary with Fallout. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Added a description of Super Mutants in the setting sub-section

Addendum, I'm going to be honest, I've copy edited some chunks of the article but reading the development section I feel there are some flaws that a copy editing can't necessarily fix. Mostly in the development section. I'm finding it difficult to tell WHEN things happened in relation to others. Reading it it seems Tim Cain began building this engine for fun in his spare time in 1994, but most of the team was not hired by Feargus until 1996? So for at least a year Cain was working alone, but them it will say things like "After deciding on using the post-apocalyptic setting, they wanted to develop it as a sequel to Wasteland, but unable to obtain a license from Electronic Arts, the team decided to make Fallout a stand-alone game.[33]" So were they not making it a Fallout game until 1996? It is unclear, to me at least, unless I'm missing something. There are other things such as "He believed that the player character's knowledge of the game world should mirror the player's.[43]" How did he/they achieve this? It states their intent but not what they did, was this a narrative choice, were their gameplay aspects? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I have clarified parts of the development section such as your confusion about the team numbers. The article already stated that Cain was alone for six months, not a year. The team reached 15 people by 1995 and 30 by 1996. Urquhart was not responsible for recruiting most of the team but did recruit some in 1996. As for your player character knowledge confusion, it was mostly a narrative choice. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lazman, I've seen you've made edits, I'm going to take a look at them tomorrow but a quick glance showed a big improvement. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes made have been a big improvement to the article. As mentioned above I add the caveat that I'm not super familiar with this game beyond cultural osmosis so I can't say anything regarding its completeness but it seems to be comprehenesive. I will note that there are some references that are not archived such as #111, #121, #122, #123, etc making them susceptible to LinkRot and making the article not futureproofed. And at least ref #37 doesn't actually mention what game it is from as part of the reference so it doesn't appear to be complete as a ref. I won't remove my Support over it so that this can progress but it does need addressing before the article can be considered FA worthy IMO. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I have run the article through the InternetArchiveBot, allowing it to archive links to prevent link rot. As for your concern with reference 37, it is a shortened footnote of a reference to Fallout; the full reference is in the sources section. This is allowed by WP:SFN. Lazman321 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Spy-cicle

Unfortunately I will not have the time to undertake a full review though I do have a few quick comments. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason why there is no gameplay screenshot?

Comment: There was a screenshot, but it was removed by Buidhe for lacking context. I might add a better screenshot soon.

Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why what appears to be the WP:OFFICIAL name Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game and retronym Fallout 1 are tucked away in an efn. I can understand why tucking away minor stylisations may be worth putting away in an efn (e.g. Red Dead Redemption 2) but putting the official name is an efn seems to be against MOS:LEAD.

Done: Incorporating official title into the lead.

The official name does not appear in the body once as well.

Not Done: The official name is neither short enough nor common enough to be used in the body without unneeded awkwardness. If there is a secondary source that discusses the name, I'd be more inclined to use it, probably in the development section.

Per WP:VGBOX "art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture." The current box art uses logotypes could probably be replaced with a logoless one [2].

Not Done: Also per WP:VGBOX: "The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release." The cover art used in the infobox currently is from the original release, while the image you are suggesting is from the version on Steam, which is nowhere near as notable as the original version on PC.

Chris Jones is linked in infobox but is a redirect

Done: I removed him; he wasn't even mentioned in the body.

Citations should be cited in order (e.g. [10][18][24] not [24][10][18])

Done except for instances where I felt changing the citation order would interfere with text-source integrity.

I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ovinus

The article seems reasonably comprehensive (although I know little about video games) but the writing needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, there's a fair amount of flowery language (e.g., "became incredibly successful, both critically and commercially"; "the first game in the series to sell incredibly well was Fallout 3"; "which contained multiple possible settings to play with") and vague language (e.g., "the inhabitants will be immersed in dilemmas"). I would suggest going back to peer review, and I would definitely review in-depth there. And since it's a relatively popular article, I'd be willing to undertake a copyediting effort in due time, if you would like that. But I can't support the article in its current state. Ovinus (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and copyedit the article. Honestly, when this article was listed on the WP:GOCE requests page, I would've preferred you or Baffle gab1978 accepting and copyediting the article rather than someone who had less than one year of experience on Wikipedia. I do have a question, however. Why can't you do an in-depth review during the feature article candidacy instead of the peer review? I do not want to have this candidacy archived just so you can review it on the peer review. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unfortunate situation because peer review gets insufficient attention, so instead FACs become the place for extended commentary. I can simultaneously review it and copyedit it, but I'd like to discuss changes, clarifications, etc. with you outside of this page. How about I'll get started on it, and I'll raise my questions on the article's talk? Also in the future, you can always ask me directly if you'd like! Ovinus (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thank you very much. Lazman321 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Coords shouldn't consider this a support, since I can't make any claims to the article's accuracy; I'm mostly commenting on my own work.) My copyedit isn't quite done yet—still a few quibbles from me on the article talk—but I believe the writing is better. That being said, it took longer than expected and I naturally got somewhat "close" to the writing, so I'm sure I made plenty of oversights. I'm also not experienced in video game copyediting, so there may be jarring tense issues and writing that is too "immersive" in the game. Ovinus (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from JimmyBlackwing

I'd like to second Ovinus's note about the need for copyediting. Scanning it, I see a number of snakes, and some awkward phrasing. Take this sentence: "Fallout was commercially successful, however, it was not a breakout hit upon release, especially compared to the other role-playing video games Baldur's Gate and Diablo; it failed to meet expectations in sales." (You can strike this note if Ovinus's copyedit is completed.)

Alongside that, regarding the number of copies sold, I question the framing that the game had "lackluster sales" that "failed to meet expectations." Based on the footnotes, these ideas come mostly from IGN's history of the Fallout series. I personally consider IGN to be, in terms of accurate history, a situational source. It's notorious for factual errors. Notably, the writer provides no direct quotation to support this claim, nor any numbers. Wide access to data on Fallout's sales wasn't available at that time—most of the sources in the sales section now, I had to dredge up from lost news archives and old magazines that would've been unknown to the writer of that piece.

And those sources call Fallout's sales solid. Compared to most computer games at the time, that was unquestionably true. Fallout was a good performer in Interplay's catalog, even compared to games with more mainstream appeal, like Carmageddon—which Fallout handily outsold in the US. It wasn't Diablo, but most games weren't, including the successful ones (see: Close Combat, Dark Reign, Quake II). I don't think the article should give IGN's framing pride of place.

I'm unfortunately too swamped with work to do a more comprehensive review than this. I'll leave that to other editors. I just noticed these points and wanted to mention them quickly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the changes and additions to the article since I made this comment have improved things. This isn't a "support," because I haven't assessed the article in full, but my few objections have been resolved. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching the five week mark and just the single general support. Again, if there are not clear signs of a consensus to promote at least beginning to form by the time this is five weeks old I will have to reconsider archiving. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, archiving. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.