Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/.hack (video game series)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.hack (video game series)[edit]

I opened up a general peer review for this too, but a VG peer review might have beneficial consequences from eyes of the familiar. Just a few sets of eyes would help this article on its way to FA. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 陣内Jinnai
  • You should have a related media/legacy section for the light novels and manga that was spun off of the series. You should also mention how it spawned direct sequals, G.U. and Link as well as the larger franchise.陣内Jinnai 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, good catch. I don't remember these things on my own, lol. Working on it... [edit:Done!] Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry i've been working on some of the .hack article a while back and haven't heard of a discussion to merge. Well i have been gone for a week so that may have explained it. I feel this will only benefit the article for now, but once we find more sources to seperate them i think it can be split one last time. I still don't understand how .hack fragment works with related media and legacy (i barely see any legacy at all). A legacy section is more suited for the franchise article. I don't think the article should've been merged with the .hack (video game series). I think the article needed more reception to substain notability, but i don't think it was in so much danger in order to be merged.

Anyways, everything looks fine except for what is mentioned by Jinnai and some of my personal opinions. For now the least is can be is B-rank.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • It fits in the related media and legacy section because it's practically another game in the IMOQ series. It uses the exact same engine and even has the same plot (almost like a remake?). A similar thing was done with The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and the Four Swords article. LTTP+FS used to be its own article but now it was merged since the only major difference to discuss was the FS multiplayer mode. It even had its own reception table yet it was still merged, and the fragment article couldn't boast that much. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't comment on fragment specifically, but the success of these video games did spawn the larger franchise and thus it should be noted here just like the main article. Dragon Warrior notes the impact of its game on RPGs just as the Dragon Quest series does for that title.陣内Jinnai 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I spent the better part of a day looking for sources on fragment but I could only find the few that I did. There might be a few more out there in Japanese, but I don't have to expertise to locate them. That's why I made the bold decision to merge, at least for the time being since those sources would have to come upon us at their leisure. Any comments on the prose or comprehensiveness? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe move the main merge entry to the franchise article and a trimmed down one for the article?陣内Jinnai 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What should be moved? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Move the bulk of Fragment to the franchise article and leave a smaller amount, a short paragraph, on it in the article.陣内Jinnai 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can see where you're coming from, but as far as I can tell, the three and a half paragraphs you see there is all the information that exists. I don't see a problem in leaving it where it is since it doesn't take up that much space and it's highly related to these games anyway. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • So too is .hack//GU related. Point being is that the amount of relevance and whether there is a better place for it. Here it is relevant, but i believe the franchise one is a better place for the it with a summary left on this page. This is because the article being discussed here is about the original 4 games and franchise is about the entire franchise. Given that it should be mentioned on both pages (if its relevant here, its relevant for the franchise), the smaller section should be on this page.陣内Jinnai 21:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'd argue that fragment is related to this series a few orders of magnitude closer than GU. At any rate, I'll bring it up at FAC to get a wider opinion on it. Do you have any suggestions regarding the prose, referencing, or anything else you can think of? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

break[edit]

referencing
  • Added tags to the only items that seemed a bit contriversial
    • I changed it to a less controversial wording. Does that need a ref? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the pose should be cleaned up. FE, you mention AI numerous times; after mentioning at the start of that last sentance there are 2 important AI characters you don't need to reiterate they are AI characters.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead could have some references for non-contriversial duplicate material removed.
    • I'd say extra references never hurt anyone. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LEADCITE - They do actually harm tranclusion so without a justifiable reason they shouldn't be there.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed some non-contentious refs from the lead, but I left the one about Liminality (I'm still working on integrating Liminality more). Looking at WP:LEADCITE, I don't see anything about "harming transclusion" or other disruption. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like that was taken out since I last read.陣内Jinnai 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for infobox and tables.
  • You can remove the references in the story section if they are just referencing to the work. Only if you're making descroptive commentary do you need them.
    • Ditto. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto here. Look at FA works in WP:Anime and WP:VG if you don't believe me. There is some harm. At the very least you could move them to the end of the pargraph where they won't be so disruptive.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at FA works at WP:VG, I see plenty of articles that incorporate in-line citations to the game script. Do you have a specific policy or guideline you have in mind when you say this? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:LEADCITE and as for plot summary WP:WAF.陣内Jinnai 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I read through them in their entirety because it had been a while since I last did, but I found no mention of discouraging the use of citations to primary sources in the plot section. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps WAF needs to be updated because it is commonly accepted that for statements of fact in plot summaries (and only the plot summary/story) that the work itself is inherently referenced.陣内Jinnai 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, well, until then, I'll leave the citations there. They don't hurt anyone, there's nothing about this article that might "hurt transclusion", and I'd rather not have people at FAC complain that there aren't citations to back up the plot section. You're welcome to bring up the discussion at WT:WAF. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famitsu score should probably be mentioned as its not an indivisual score (which compoasite scores combine), but a cumulative score. I cannot believe that none of these games would not have had such a score.
    • I can't seem to find any reliable sources for the Famitsu scores. Also, it'd be really hard to integrate the score into prose lacking any translation for the review itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are plenty of Japanese speakers in Wikipedia. Got to WP:Japan if you have issues there. My point is, for GA quality it may not be needed, but an FA article, I am 100% certain that at least infection has a famitsu score. As this is a JRPG you may have to find a way to browse through those Japanese sites.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't doubt that a Famitsu score exists, but I think you may be giving undue weight to one magazine. I don't make any mention of scores for any of the reviews that I included, only the aggregate score table to maintain neutrality. I don't think lacking that one score would automatically bar this article from FA. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If those scores took Famitsu into account or there was a Japanese equivalent to score averaging, but there isn't. Right now this article is actually placing undue weight on the English reviews of a game originally released in Japan because those scores cover English ones and then mostly American ones.陣内Jinnai 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found a source for Famitsu scores for the games. Looking at a large number of WP:VG featured articles on games developed in Japan, I saw many mentions of a Famitsu score, but not a single comment on the content of the Famitsu reviews. As I said, we work with what we have. I'm adding the Famitsu scores, but it will be extremely difficult to track down the physical issue that these reviews were published in AND get them translated, nor is there any precedent for requiring that of featured articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • Should mention how gameplay differs from each game, ie new features.
    • ...what new features, lol? That was one of the major criticisms of the games. As far as I can remember, everything mentioned in the gameplay section was introduced in the first game. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were 1-2 minor items (and yes, they are minor) like grunty racing introduced in part 2. Don't know beyond that. However because they weren't in the original they should be mentioned.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Story section should trim down, but also should mention items from .hack//Liminality in some way (and probably link to it that section). Because they were bundled with the game and do integrate themselves with the game it is relevant.
    • I don't think I can trim it any further, but I'll try to add some references to Liminality. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would ask someone to come copyedit that, perferable someone not familiar with the series once you're done.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
images
  • Replace the infobox image with the logo. This isn't about .hack//Infection, but the who series.
    • I added a caption because the cover is useful for depicting characters. But, do you think Mutation or Quarantine are better covers for this purpose? Keep in mind that the US cover of Quarantine hides Aura behind the logo and the Japanese cover hides Orca. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, since we are limited to 1 image/infobox in 99.99% of cases that in order to give neutral treatment the .hack logo should be used. However, It's not something I am going to press because there is a good argument for the status quo.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May want to add a second screenshot depicting something else mentioned in gameplay.
    • What did you have in mind? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I had 3 ideas:
        1. image of kite data draining
          1. Pro - Data drain gets a lot of talk and is integral to the storyline.
          2. Con - To really demonstrate it, a video clip is probably necessary to qualify for passing WP:NFCC.
        2. image of the mail/bbs screen
          1. Pro - its not part of the battle screen and is a major part of the game
          2. Con - its probably won't pass WP:NFCC] as its fairly simplisitc
        3. image of one of the twons where kite interacts with one of the "virtual" characters.
          1. Pro - shows how the characters interact with other virtual characters outside battle.
          2. Con - may be difficult to get commentary that would fit an image as most would require a video footage.
      • These 3 all depict elements talked about in the gameplay and thus could be relevant. Each one has its own issues though.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
legacy
  • You missed the prequal, .hack//SIGN which explains the origin of Skeith, Aura and Morgana.
  • try to remove those short paragraphs in the last section by finding ways to merge them.陣内Jinnai 06:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i have been gone for a while, but i'm back now. Anyways...the legend of zelda may follow that particular style, but like i said, If a game has specific reception and story, than it can be separated as long as there's enough . the only reason why i see it all merged in one is because the articles don't sustain enough individuality. but there is story, and reception to consider along with additional features. Anyways i disagree with including .hack//SIGN and .hack//Liminality directly into the article. it would be a bit difficult to include .hack//SIGN to include even if it was suppose to because although it's a prequel it did release before the .hack games so i don't know how it would work out on legacy section. I disagree with merging the scores (at least that's what i understood from what you said).Bread Ninja (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sign i part of the legacy section. It just needs to be mentioned that an anime prequal was later released or something. .hack//Liminality is different; it was releeased with the games and is integral with the games, especially later episodes. For a GA-quality article it may suffice to ignore it, but an FA article will require it because of the packaged release.陣内Jinnai 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.hack//SIGN came before the .hack games, so that's why i don't think it should be in the legacy section.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is thinking WP:IN-UNIVERSE. The video games came out several months before the first airing. It may not be "legacy", but it is certainly related media as it would not have likely come out or been as popular without the video games.陣内Jinnai 15:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made a brief mention of it, just like all the other related media. Jinnai, can you comment on any of the points I brought up above? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it In-universe? You already proved my point that it's not legacy. so therefore it shouldn't be mentioned (because i don't see anywhere else where it can be placed).Bread Ninja (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its relevant. Can you honestly tell me that .hack//SIGN is no way related to the video games, the storyline and/or their sucess?陣内Jinnai 02:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call it "related media", okay? I don't think this discussion is constructive to the peer review process. I've already made an unobtrusive mention of it and I don't think anything else needs to be done. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.陣内Jinnai 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a response to my other points? Axem Titanium (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted a few.陣内Jinnai 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit in-universe or guide-like if we did add it in just because it's relevant. Well i suppose it could be added, but i'm not even sure how exactly it would look like. the most i would imagine would be "See also" and then add the link. .hack//Roots is barely mentioned at all in .hack//G.U. article and i don't think it is needed for GA (if it were ever close to becoming). I think more reception is needed and i don't think the gameplay image should have such detail description. I also think more individual development should be put in if there is anyBread Ninja (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. .hack//Sign is already mentioned in the article to the extend that it ever will (which is a short blurb). I don't see how that's guide-like at all. And if "it's relevant", then it should be included by definition. The GU article is a mess and we shouldn't use it as an example. I've spent days culling the relevant criticisms from multiple sources so I can confidently say that there is nothing left to say about reception. I can equally confidently say that there are no other reliable sources regarding development. The caption for the gameplay image must accurately describe its contents, per WP:CAPTION and WP:ALT. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and another thing, let's try to bring back the .hack//Fragment article. It looks odd to have it's own section when it doesn't relate that much into .hack games, it just has the same universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can't follow your reasoning. Unlike .hack//Sign or GU, fragment is highly related to these games. Not only does it have the exact same gameplay and engine, the story is identical as well. I can also confidently say that there are no more English reliable sources about fragment, whether they be about development, reception, gameplay, or any other aspect. The internet literally does not have any more sources on that game beyond what's in the article, at least based on my hours of search. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In-universe is something completely different than what you're talking about. These are related media products which used advertising one of to support the other. That's not in-universe.陣内Jinnai 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't need all english sources for .hack//Fragment. i never played the .hack//Fragment game, but the article doesn't even hint it's related. just that it's a separate game inthe same universe. The gameplay is slightly different from the original,and holds much more online-based features. Either way, as for jinnai, i still say it's trying to be a guide which we should avoid doing.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article and sources clearly state that the gameplay is identical and outline the online features. SIGN is not a game, therefore it cannot be a "game guide". I'm closing this PR and moving it to FAC (here) to get a wider array of editors looking at it. I think it's improved all it can from this PR. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about a game guide, I'm talking about story related guide. Related Media isn't really necessary, only legacy. Related media seems a bit trivial. hack//Fragment allows to create your own character to a degree and allows online and offline gameplay, so there is differences between the two, how you do battle is of course identical but overall gameplay isn't.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of no one wanting to return due to this discussion, but i just came by to see if we could add just a normal "media" section. Things such as soundtracks or other. technically it's not legacy, and related media seems to strain from the main topic. Also a little out of subject, i plan making a list of .hack chapters article, so the chapters wont all be scattered and taking up unnecessary space andi also plan on merging .hack conglomerate along with project .hack on the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/.hack_(video_game_series)&oldid=375887928"