This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
God of War: Betrayal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "God of War: Betrayal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
God of War: Betrayal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
God of War: Betrayal is part of the God of War franchise series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 20, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
That's not free to use! Surely not! No! Arghh! It even as the IGN watermark! -- 91.105.13.49 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what if we beat the game? Should we edit the page because I know what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatchetGOD ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If the article summary doesn't cover the whole game, then yes. The other God of War games have summaries that cover the whole sequence of events, there's no reason why this one shouldn't either.-- 24.255.171.220 ( talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This section can't be used as it is one fan's opinion.
When referring to the overall series, Betrayal is very often forgotten (an opinion). For example, in the 2010 documentary, God of War: Unearthing the Legend (a franchise documentary), the game or its story is not mentioned (relevance?). Also, in the 2010 documentary, God of War - Game Directors Live, there was not a director represented for the game and its story was also not mentioned (again, relevance? This is an assumption based on an omission). It is, however, mentioned in the God of War III: Ultimate Edition - Strategy Guide (so? Threading together perceived points based on opinion).
Got to be factual, regardless of own views. 125.63.191.61 ( talk) 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
125.7.71.6 ( talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Per request, a more detailed analysis of assessment.
To begin with, I'll briefly describe the definitions of the three main assessments I try to deal with: Start, C, and B. In a nutshell, Start articles are more detailed than stubs, but weak in certain areas. C articles are generally somewhat developed throughout the article, but still with room for improvement. B implies that an article is generally a satisfying amount of detail for a casual reader and is adequately developed throughout, with GA not being too far off.
I was almost tempted to give the article C-Class. The lead and development are pretty much fine (if a bit biased against mobile titles in the latter), and the gameplay section is adequate. Normally I'd ask for a slightly longer reception section, but with only two reviews, I'm not going to ask the impossible.
Ultimately, the reason I kept it as Start was for the Plot section. If the story's simple, I don't have any issue with that subsection, but the Characters and Setting sections are a little lacking regardless. If you're going to have a Setting section, it would do well to elaborate more than one sentence. Even something like "the game takes place after God of War 17 but before God of Dance" would probably prove to be really helpful information. (Although you should probably substitute actual games instead of those.) It's said once that the game is fifth in the series (albeit in the lead), but that doesn't necessarily mean much if I don't know what the others are.
Aside, a 'setting' section is usually a paragraph that supports the 'story' section with any information that would be required to understand it. I would strongly advise pimping this section a bit to include things like what sort of Gods and monsters are being especially naughty in this game, or why Kratos has decided to be angry today, or whatever.
Finally, the 'characters' section is a bit short as well. The description of Kratos is succinct and sufficient for a game article. However, you've delegated the rest of the cast to 'all other characters are minor', which means one of two things:
If the first, just delete it outright. If the second, go ahead and include it. 'Characters' sections can sometimes even be obsoleted by a well-detailed 'Story' or 'Setting' section, so keep that in mind too.
As I said, it's very close to a tasty C-Class, but I'm still a little hungry for plot info after reading it. You can feel free to upgrade the article after that's been sorted out. With love, Emmy Altava 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You (Bluerim) came back from a 5 day break and made an edit to the page and that's okay. I reverted that edit and told you the reasonings for the wordings on the page because I assumed you didn't know. You reverted me and claimed "I've read it and that's still fine as it is an active statement and reads better. Other effort a tad clumsy. May need to be corrected across all articles." "Reads better" is debatable, and it actually didn't read better because you had to fix it after reverting me again. As for "a tad clumsy," I stated the reasonings in my Edit Summary (which was that the reviewers would have addressed it and some was their wording), which by the way, how was it "a tad clumsy?"
You reverted me again and then claimed "Not about "siding". They admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion. If you can come up with a third option, fine. That said, no more outright reverts please." I don't see why you said "Not about 'siding'." I said it because I trust the reviewers comments/suggestions more as they have much more experience than either of us. Also, don't put words in their mouth. The active language issue was brought up by Bridies. He/she did not "admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion." I'm not quite sure where you got that from, unless you're referring to when he/she later stated "active would be something like" which was referring to a sentence not on this page.What Bridies said for this issue was "this is another where I wouldn't argue strongly against the passive" meaning, it should be active (which he/she stated "should say"), but passive isn't necessarily bad, though active is preferred.
As for "outright reverts," this was not the case as I explained my reasonings WITH backup. You reverted based on your own preference with no backup beyond a possible misinterpretation of what was said. You should have brought this to the Talk page instead of doing just that, "outright reverts."
On a somewhat side note, "powering-up Kratos?" This isn't Mario.
P.S. We are still waiting for responses at the Characters talk page. I stated it in my ES and you haven't done anything except revert this page. - JDC808 ( talk) 08:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
All seems to be very good. I will wait until you see this to pass the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21™ 22:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Requesting assessment for A-Class. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
| rev1 = Modojo | rev1Score = [1] | rev2 = The Escapist | rev2Score = 8/10 [2]
However, Modojo's Justin Davis said that although it "isn't too bad", it "isn't great". [1]
Davis felt that the combat system was "a little shallow", He said it seems as if the "hordes of enemies ... exist solely to act as punching (or slicing, as it were) bags for Kratos". [1]
A review from The Escapist stated "the plot isn't progressive, but it suits its purpose for a mobile game". They also said the "platforming is great". [2] Davis said that although there are puzzle and platforming elements, the focus is "clearly on the combat." [1]
http://www.1up.com/previews/god-war-betrayal