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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2023 [1].

Tunic (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent to any video game player with experience or context that we have entered an era where an "indie video game" can match or exceed the depth and design quality of titles constructed by hundreds of developers. No longer small little art projects or games that aren't judged against those made by "real companies", we're seeing games like 2022's Tunic: a game made primarily by one person, where the design was done after 6 months but he then spent 6 more years refining and revising. And the result? The article will tell you that it won 2 BAFTAs and was in the top 30-scored games of the year for most platforms, and top-10 for the Switch, but I'll tell you that it was one of my top-5 gaming experiences ever. Andrew Shouldice wanted players to not just feel the sense that the world around the character was bigger than them, but to be hit with the revelation that it was bigger than they realized an hour ago, over and over, and that there was always just a little bit more that they didn't have the context for yet, and he succeeded. The result is a game that looks like "what if Zelda but with a fox" at first glance but then finds you hours later scrawling notes about puzzles in between hitting monsters with a sword while trying to figure out the backstory through nothing but context clues and a dogged refusal to check Reddit for the answers.

So, I played the game, and then I turned around and wrote the article (pretty much scrapping whatever was there in the process), and got it GA'd a couple weeks later. And now we're here. This isn't my first rodeo (though it's been apparently 6 years since I brought an indie game to FAC), but the prose is polished, Shooterwalker gave the article a thorough going-over in the GAN, the refs are archived, and hopefully y'all agree that the article is in pretty good shape for FAC. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by David Fuchs

In progress. Hit me up if there's nothing here by Tuesday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Ping. --PresN 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General and prose:
    • It was additionally nominated for several other categories at those awards, as well as for categories at other awards such as the Game Awards 2022, the Golden Joystick Awards, the 23rd Game Developers Choice Awards, and the Independent Games Festival. This sentence is just... a mess. I come down on the side of thinking a bunch of nominations isn't important enough to mention in the lead versus prominent wins.
      • Removed
    • The gameplay section switches between "the player" and "the fox" a lot, and I think should be made consistent. You also have "player character" and "player-character".
      • Standardized on "player character". Gameplay is consistent, as far as I can see, based on who is performing the action. The fox does the rolling, not the human player, and has health that is restored; it is the human player, however, that is not given instructions, and targets the enemies.
    • The plot of Tunic is expressed through gameplay, with the backstory and context given only as the fox player-character collects pages of a manual. This manual is written in a constructed language with the player as the reader. It does not explain what the fox player-character knows about the story or if they understand the constructed language. This seems like it needs third-party verification, since it's reading substantially into what's presented in the game.
      • Cut the second sentence, cited the first.
    • Is "Lifeformed" really important to know as Terence Lee's pen name? It only shows up once in the prose and the infobox.
      • Removed, it's their professional name but I'm not attached
    • The fourth section of the development section currently majorly repeats previously stated elements (the Legend of Zelda inspirations, the focus on challenging gameplay) and should probably get pared down and combined.
      • Removed duplicate bits
    • The prose has a general issue with excessive wordiness, e.g. The fox visits the six Graves of the Hero, which are scattered throughout the game world, and which now each return parts of the fox's spirit and restores them to life. — The fox visits the six Graves of the Hero, which restore the fox to life. and the like. User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing has some tips on stripping some of the excessive wordiness.
      • Condensed this sentence; I'll give the article another pass once I finish the below review of the prose.
  • Media:
    • Don't have any issues with images used.
  • References:
    • Any reason for the ref 19? Don't see why another primary source is needed if the interviewee already says 22nd Toys helped with the ports (alternately, finding a secondary source would be better.)
      • The interview says "We have a third party porting studio that is helping out", but does not name 22nd century toys (that's in the credits of the game); the 22ndtoys primary source says "Tunic for PS5, PS4, Series X|S, Xbox One, Microsoft Store, and Switch", which sums it up neatly but is insufficient on its own as a primary source.
    • Several refs are missing publishers (Bandcamp, RPGFan, etc.)
      • Missed that Bandcamp got bought by Epic, and RPGFan made a new company name (it used to be just "RPGFan"). Other cases should be where the publisher has the same name as the website (the Gematsu website is published by the company Gematsu, for instance)
    • Not entirely sure about Noclip as a high-quality RS.
      • It's a video interview with Shouldice (he does 95% of the talking); I'm citing his own words directly, not the opinions or filtered facts of the interviewer.
    • Given its issues, I'd also say that Screenrant doesn't count as a high-quality RS for FA standards.
      • Replaced
    • Will perform a spot-check.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 27, 28, 31, and 32.
      • Article text: "Throughout the world are shrines with a large fox statue; kneeling at these shrines restores the fox's health and magic, while also reviving any defeated enemies. When the fox dies, they are restored at the last shrine they have knelt at." Not adequately supported by Ref 4 (doesn't mention the fox statues) Likewise the review doesn't mention the camera lock-on revealing secrets ("this also shifts the camera, which can reveal hidden passages or objects.")
      • "Weapons have varying effects; the stick or sword can be swung at enemies to damage them, the shield can be used to block attacks at the cost of stamina, and magic weapons can use magic to fire projectiles, slow time, or grab enemies with a whip. Bombs can be used to cause explosions or bursts of fire, which can set enemies or the fox alight. Enemies will chase and attack the fox on sight. Defeated enemies drop coins." Almost entirely unsupported by Ref 6 (no mention of the use of the shield, bombs, enemy chase, the stick, etc.)
      • Ref 9 doesn't seem to mention the ending requirements for all the manual pages, just mentions using the pages to solve the puzzle.
      • As a reading issue, the citations where you've got four or more at the end of a sentence should really be
        bundled in some form so they aren't as much of an obstacle to flow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • @David Fuchs: Added a cite that shows the shrine in a picture and describes what it does, and added a cite to ref 8 where Shouldice explicitly states that the lock-on lets you see secrets that were hidden by the camera angle.
      • Used that cite and another gameguide cite to cover this; also ripped out half the details.
      • The game's plot is the reference for how you get the second ending; ref 9 was added because TheJoebro64 below felt that it got too specific in how the player does it (e.g. solving the Golden Path puzzle at the top of the mountain to get the last page) so ref 9 was added to cover that.
      • Bundled the metacritic score refs and split up the other bunches. --PresN 22:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responding inline; still have a couple points to get to. --PresN 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Finished, though any further instances of wordy sentences would be helpful. --PresN 22:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

One of my favorite games, very nice to see it at FAC. Review coming shortly. JOEBRO64 16:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Ping. --PresN 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry—will try to post tomorrow JOEBRO64 22:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been extremely busy, so it probably won’t be up until tomorrow or Sunday JOEBRO64 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here goes. I think there's still a fair amount that needs work here, though we're not a million miles off.

  • I'm not a fan of the last three sentences of the second lede paragraph. They're all some variation of "[person/company] joined the project in [year]"—it's repetitive and clunky. I'd condense to something like "over the years, [people] joined" and try to explain the contributions they made
  • Condensed
  • I think the article still needs some copyediting. I'll make an effort to do some once I've got more time, but some things I noticed:
    • You use the passive voice a lot, often in cases where it can be written in the active. e.g "Throughout the world are shrines with a large fox statue" → "Shrines with a large fox statue stand throughout the world." This is especially prevalent in the Reception section; stuff like "[element] was praised" can easily be rewritten as "critics praised "element"
      • Tried to reduce the amount of passive voice, though ironically not the instance you mentioned- the shrines are inanimate objects, so making their placement active voice is a bit of poetic anthropomorphism that feels like trying too hard.
    • Hit Ctrl+F and search for every instance of "game's", "of the game", "for the game", etc. You'll find in 99% of cases you can cut it without losing anything. e.g. "Other major inspirations for the game were Monument Valley (2014) and Fez (2012)."
      • Reduced the number of "game"s
    • Some structuring comes across as repetitive. For example, the last three paragraphs of the development section all begin with some form of "additionally", while the last two paragraphs of the reception section begin with "[element] was praised". Try to vary things up a bit
      • Reworked, partially due to changes from above reviewers
  • As a precaution, I'd add a reference or two to back up the alternate endings. I think it's the type of thing that goes a little beyond a straightforward plot summary, since we mention precisely how to activate the alternate endings
    • Done
  • I think you can bin the "Design" subheader under Development. The section discusses the entire development, not just its design
    • I love how every reviewer contradicts previous reviewers... done
  • I think Release should be split into a separate section. Development and release are different processes handled separately from one another, and there's enough content present that it doesn't need to be lumped with development here. Move the stuff about the team expanding, music, manual art, and the game taking longer than expected under development and split the rest into a Release section.
    • Not done- if I did that, I'd get a single paragraph, which then should not be its own section
  • Statements like "Tunic's plot received less attention than its gameplay from reviewers, with mixed opinions", "The graphics and aesthetics were highly praised", and "The exploration and secrets aspects of the game were heavily praised as well" need direct refs. They're generalizations that could easily be challenged
    • These are essentially topic sentences for the paragraph that follows, and as such are referenced by all of the references in that paragraph. They "could" be challenged, but I promise you that after 15 years of using them in GAs/FAs, they never are.

That's what I have to say for now. JOEBRO64 21:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Thanks for reviewing, responded inline. --PresN 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Checking in. --PresN 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say now is:
  • I'd say "Tunic's plot received less attention than its gameplay from reviewers" falls afoul of
    WP:SYNTH
    —unless there's a source that outright says this, you're going beyond what the sources say in this case
  • This is down to personal preference, but I don't think naming reviewers in prose is necessary. The reviewers are speaking on behalf of the publication they're writing for and I personally find reception sections are easier to follow when you're reading IGN and GameSpot instead of McCaffrey and Wakeling

Otherwise there's not much holding the article back, so I'll stop withholding my support. Nice work. JOEBRO64 17:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review from ProtoDrake

  • Image Review: Infobox cover art suitable, without watermarks and with acceptable formatting. Gameplay image also seems suitable, shows the in-game elements with suitable detail at current size, licencing seems sound. License for the Dev image checks out.
  • Source Review: All sources either third-party, or properly used primary. The one source that seemed a little iffy, Game Rant, seems properly used within the limits set on this page. Archiving and formatting are consistent.

Pass on both. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

Because this is one of my first FACRs, I won't be giving support/oppose, but I'm still happy to give comments! If you get bored, I have an open FAC as well and would appreciate any comments. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest adding Template:Use American English and Template:Use mdy dates (or other as appropriate)
  • Within weeks it had its fox protagonist... Comma after weeks
  • In March 2015, at the Game Developers Conference... Think this could be phrased better by combining the two, such as, "At the March 2015 Game Developers Conference..."
  • I suggest adding a "Year" column between "Award" and "Category" in the Awards table.
  • Ref 7 should be followed by "via YouTube" using the via= parameter

Spotcheck to come. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MyCatIsAChonk: Done most- I specifically dropped the "year" column because it doesn't add anything here. All of these awards were "best of 2022" awards, it's just that some were awarded before January 1 and some after. When the award show was actually held isn't major/useful information for the reader. --PresN 14:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough about the year column. My reason for commenting about that was because I expect the game to be nominated for more awards sooner than later, and so it might've been helpful to distinguish the two. I've finished my spotcheck, see below. Best of luck getting this to FA, it's a great article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck

I'll randomly select 15 sources (15 is almost half the total number of sources).

  • 1: Use B only partially supports the claim; the source doesn't state "dodge-rolling", nor does it support that the fox runs faster after rolling. Uses A, C, and D are good.
  • 2: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 6: The source does not explicitly describe the "ghostly realm" as such, might be best to just say "a realm called the Ruined Atoll" (if I'm understanding it correctly)
  • 7: Use C does not support the statement. Uses A and B are good.
  • 8: Good
  • 12: Uses A, B, C, and D all good
  • 15: Use A is incomplete; while it does support Tunic being inspired by Monument Valley, no where in the article does it mention Fez. Uses B and C are good.
  • 17: Article doesn't say that the game was developed by Isometricorp
  • 19: Good
  • 20: Good
  • 21: Good
  • 26: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 29: Uses A, B, C, and D are good
  • 30: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 34: Uses A and B are good

That's all from me. Seems like an interesting game, might have to play it sometime! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk:
  • 1 - Added a cite that calls it dodge rolling, and dropped the second clause.
  • 6 - dropped the description
  • 7 - Does, actually, verified it this morning when I added the timestamps- Shouldice doesn't say it out loud, but when he's talking about adding the manual into the game the video is labeled "June 2015 Prototype" while showing the fox pick up a piece of the manual.
  • 15 - wasn't being used to cover Fez mention in the previous sentence, just that sentence; moved around some later cites to the previous sentence to cover
  • 17 - ah, it has the logo but not the name. Dropped, it's not important here
--PresN 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand 7 now, thanks for clarifying. Good luck! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cukie Gherkin

Lead/Infobox

  • Seems a bit off that the developer is not mentioned outside of the lead and infobox.
  • Fixed, that was removed in the review process above

Gameplay

  • Does "lash" refer to "whip"? If so, Googling it, it seems like the word whip gets used significantly more often in the context of Tunic gameplay.
  • @Cukie Gherkin: Replaced. Note also that your redirect changes contradict what Rhain (re-)did a few days ago, though I agree with you. --PresN 13:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one point that could be made is that linking directly to
    Windows. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Plot

Asked @Kung Fu Man: to do the Plot section since I hear Tunic's a weird little game lore-wise or something and I'd like to experience that. Here's what he said:

  • "Every time an enemy kills the fox" <- This may be better as "If the fox is killed during this time by an enemy" - Since it ties into something mentioned later, but also makes it an if statement rather than implying deaths are guaranteed?
  • Agreed, done
  • Other than that I feel like New Game Plus may need a small explanation like simply saying "and start from the beginning with X" because not all games handle NG+ the same way (i.e. yeah you start from the beginning in some, but with your gear carrying over instead of levels).
  • Done, ironically this is one of those where you keep items, not levels.
@Cukie Gherkin: Done all above. --PresN 15:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

All looks good, only thing I'd like to see would be content relating to Game of the Year shit. Even a line citing multiple sources that says something to the effect of "Tunic was featured in multiple game of the year lists," and if any of them gave it GotY, just mention the site and I think that'd be solid. Here are some sources that could be used: [2] [3] [4] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll add another thing I'd like to see - pre-release reception. Doesn't have to be much, but I think it'd be valuable to know how critics felt about the game from demos (if applicable), trailers, etc. It may be worthwhile to add a sentence describing how people saw the game, and whether it got any awards (like "Best of E3"). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Now added both of these. Pre-release is in the announcement/release subsection, because it didn't fit in the flow of reception very well and also it didn't win any awards. --PresN 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, looks good. Support. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

I reviewed the GA article and thought this was very close to FA. I've been watching this closely and I can say that the additional reviews have helped this get to FA status. It exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tunic_(video_game)/archive1&oldid=1161318944"