Good articleHistory of Western role-playing video games has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 27, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Another article[edit]

Here is an interesting article I have encountered: The year role-playing games broke. I don't know how it can be worked into the existing article, though... Chronologically, it would fit at the end of the Golden Age section, I think. --Koveras ☭ 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great tip, thanks! SharkD  Talk  06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstarting[edit]

Should probably mention the new Kickstarter trend (e.g. Wasteland 2). However, I haven't been keeping up with developments recently. SharkD  Talk  06:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are four RPGs being worked on right now: Banner Saga, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns and Class of Heroes 2. SharkD  Talk  23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, its a trend that should be covered somewhere on wikipedia, but I do not think the influence has been felt on RPGs yet. Once a few of these projects launch, we will have a better idea of what their impact will be. Indrian (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grim Dawn is another one. SharkD  Talk  23:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading[edit]

I think this article is in need of some proofreading. Especially parts where the narrative seems disjointed and the grammar is just "off". Is now a good time to nominate the article for FAC or peer review? SharkD  Talk  04:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently nominated for GA status. However, it currently fails criteria 1b with regards to meeting the "manual of style guidelines for lead sections" which says "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." While this current lead, defines the topic, it does not summarize the body of the article. maclean (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the current lede any better? SharkD  Talk  19:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a positive addition to the lead. Generally, aim for this WP:LEAD#Length, but really these prinples that should be incorporated into the lead: WP:LEAD#Introductory text. —maclean (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit further. Is that sufficient? SharkD  Talk  21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Western role-playing video games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Torchiest (talk · contribs) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning my review. This may take a while, as the article is pretty hefty, and I intend to be thorough. Comments will come later today. —Torchiest talkedits 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Generally very good, but you should take one more slow read-through and look for minor grammar and punctuation problems. Or have someone else look it over, since it may be easier for them to spot the little mistakes at this point. I'm guessing you're a bit glazed from all the work you've done. :)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I suggest breaking the lead into multiple paragraphs. It's a bit wall of text-y right now. Also, there are a few WP:MOS issues. You need to go through and remove words that are too vague. For example, in the lead, you say, "Today role-playing games are once again popular..." "Today" won't always be today; change it to something like, "Role-playing games are once again popular in the early 2010s." You also need to define acronyms like CRPG, a term you use continuously without explaining at the beginning, e.g. role-playing game (RPG).
    Done. SharkD  Talk  16:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in the Mainframe computers (late 1970s–early 1980s) section, you don't capitalize a lot of the game names. However, in the ones that have Wikipedia articles, they are capitalized in those articles. I believe they should almost all be capitalized, except for dnd, which isn't capitalized in its article. There may be some other exceptions, but take another look at those.
    They are not capitalized since the PLATO platform they were developed for did not support capitalization in its file system. That's why dnd and pedit5 are not capitalized, and why the others shouldn't as well. SharkD  Talk  16:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At the beginning of Ultima and Wizardry (early–mid 1980s), you say, "For instance," which I believe is too casual in WP:TONE. You can just pull it, which will make the sentence stronger anyway. Look out for similar problems elsewhere. Further down in the second paragraph of that section, you have this: "According to Garriott, Ultima was now "more than a mere fantasy escape. It provided a world with a framework of deeper meaning?a level of detail [and] diversity of interaction that is rarely attempted."" Is that a typo, or is it what the source says? It should either be fixed or tagged with ((sic)) to avoid confusion.
    Done. The typo exists in the source as well, so I didn't know what to do about it. SharkD  Talk  16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Diablo section: "(Diablo's development was influenced by Moria and Angband[12][43])," you should always move the references behind punctuation. "Not least of all contributing to Diablo's success was its support for online, collaborative play through its online service, Battle.net..." This is phrased a bit awkwardly. Can you rewrite it to be a little clearer?
    I disagree with moving the refs. I don't think there's a better place to put them, and putting them outside the parentheses would be misleading. SharkD  Talk  16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another minor punctuation issue in the Diablo section. You're using the hyphen "-" in places where you should be using the mdash "—" to break up interjections. The spot I'm looking at now: With the sheer number of items, locations and monsters found in such games - especially those of the hack and slash variety - it can be difficult to design an encounter that is both unique and works regardless of how a character has been customized." That should read "With the sheer number of items, locations and monsters found in such games—especially those of the hack and slash variety—it can be difficult to design an encounter that is both unique and works regardless of how a character has been customized. Another spot: "BioWare--once considered the "savior" of the Western RPG following a lengthy drought--are..." I do see that you've got this mostly correct in the article though.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Towards the end of that section, "An expansion pack to Diablo, titled Diablo: Hellfire, was released in 1997; followed by a sequel, Diablo II, in 2000. The sequel later received its own expansion, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, in 2001; and three of the four titles are commonly sold together in stores as part of the Diablo Battle Chest over a decade later." That sequence is a bit confusing. Can you specify which were sold together? A little farther down, "all made use of procedural generation to generate game levels." Mix up the language a little here.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving into the Interplay section, the part about Fallout: "Black Isle soon followed up with a sequel, and a tactical RPG based on the franchise by third-party developer Micro Forté" Your link to Fallout Tactics is in the bolded text. Could you rewrite that to make it more obvious that the link is going to that specific game rather than to the concept of a tactical RPG?
    Done. SharkD  Talk  17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should move the Avellone quote up into the paragraph that focuses on Fallout. It's a bit late in the action where it is, after the summary of the Interplay games.
    The problem is that the text gets squished when the browser window is small. SharkD  Talk  17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two thirds of the way down in the 21st century section: " Also beginning in 2006, Obsidian Entertainment was developing a role-playing game based on the Aliens film franchise, but it was later canceled along with an original title with the working name of Seven Dwarves." That's a bit awkwardly phrased.
    I don't see the issue with this sentence. Two titles were cancelled: the Alien title and an original IP. Do you have any suggestions on how to rewrite it? SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little past that, you've got this: "The third game in particular was notable for its 'ton of quests, rewards exploration[sic] and approachable combat', but also for its 'system hogging, feeling unfinished[sic] and atrocious voice acting'." I see what you're doing here, but why no try rewriting your framing comments to build around the original text, instead of noting that the verbs and such don't match?
    Done. SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Bethesda section: "A total of two expansion packs" is wordy; just say two. Just a little farther down, "total of five", same thing.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Towards the end of the Recent video game consoles and multi-platform titles section: " there is still a stigma of nerdiness associated with the term "role-playing game" that developers and publishers prefer to avoid." Put "nerdiness" in quotes, assuming you're quoting the source.
    It's not a direct quote. It's merely implied, so no quotes. SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the See also list, you should remove everything except the "Cultural differences" link, as all the others already appear earlier in the article.
    Done. Actually, I removed the whole section. SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you can split the list of specific references you've got at the top of your list, like Barton, Matt (2007-02-23). "The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 1: The Early Years (1980–1983)". in a separate section either above or below the References section, and call it Bibliography.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed this is a few spots, and it's incorrect grammar. You should not be using the word "and" immediately after a semicolon. In some cases, changing it to a comma will fix the problem, but in other cases, you could remove the "and". Just remember that a semicolon should be dividing two pieces of text that can each be read as a complete sentence individually.
    I have trouble with punctuation, so I'd appreciate if someone else were to fix these. I do know that semicolons can also be used to separate lists of lists and sentences such as "She saw three men: Jamie, who came from New Zealand; John, the milkman's son; and George, a gaunt kind of man.". SharkD  Talk  17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    The two RPGVault references (currently #119 and #120) timed out. "The History of Console RPGs" (#19), "Diablo III Launching May 15" (#52), "Former Obsidian artist Ian Ameling's resume" (#86), "[Games Convention] Further Details About RPB" (#95), and "Mass Effect is a Game Worth Waiting For From BioWare" (#110) are dead.
    I was able to find archived versions of some of these. But the rest remain dead. SharkD  Talk  18:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    In the section on Ultima you say, "the landmark multiplayer online series, Ultima Online (1997)" is unsourced. The fact that it was a spin-off is uncontroversial, but calling it "landmark" definitely needs a reference.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The next paragraph, you say, "the Wizardry series would feature a 3D, first-person view, an intuitive interface, party-based combat, and pre-constructed levels that encouraged players to create their own maps." That needs a source of some kind, especially the last part.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Golden Age (late 1980s–early 1990s) section, you say, "The Gold Box series is probably what SSI are best known for; and is considered one of the defining series of the "Golden Age" of CRPGs." That strong of a claim definitely needs a citation. I'd also avoid saying "probably", which won't be necessary if and when you find a source making a clear statement on the subject.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Near the end of that section, third from last paragraph: "Sierra Entertainment, known for its point-and-click adventure games, would produce the Quest for Glory series beginning in 1992, combining CRPG and adventure game mechanics together into a highly unique mix." I'm thinking "highly unique" needs a cite. Right after that, you use some WP:WEASEL words: "Featuring involved stories, complex puzzles, as well as (lamentably, to some) arcade-like combat, the series would continue for a total of five titles, the most recent of which was released in 1998." It's not in the source at the end of that sentence, so you'll need to be more precise about exactly who thought the arcade-like combat was a negative, and cite it.
    Done. SharkD  Talk  20:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
    At one point, you say, "Of particular note is 1987's NetHack, an update of Rogue that arguably surpassed the original in popularity, complexity and sense of humor—as well as through its continuous extensions and updates over nearly two decades." and cite Barton 2007a, p. 2, but then note "Barton cites Hack instead of NetHack, however; and fails to mention its 'sense of humor'." If the source doesn't match the name, and doesn't describe it as humorous, that looks like original research. Can you explain what your thinking is on writing things that way?
    Fixed. The statement was original to the article before I started working on it, and I still completely agree with it. SharkD  Talk  21:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Decline section, there is this line: "Finally, games became more cinematic as opposed to novelistic, as in Knights of the Old Republic, with a focus on a single player-made character progressing through the game and acting as the player's sole avatar." Reading the source, I don't think this is an accurate summary of its contents. The main problem is the fact that KOTOR came out in 2003, eight years after this decline. The games mentioned in the previous sentence are all from the mid-to-late 1990s, which makes sense as adaptations to the changing technical environment. KOTOR, in the source, reads like more of an example of the enduring legacy of that change, not one of the games that moved the genre in that direction. I'd say you should just remove it from the sentence, which is otherwise okay. Right after that, I'd suggest putting "silliness" and "weirdness" in quotes, to make it clear you're pulling the idea from the source. Otherwise, it reads like original research.
    Done. The source does however cite KOTOR as an example. SharkD  Talk  21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking about Baldur's Gate, you say: "At the time—and despite being real-time instead of turn-based—the games created the most accurate and in-depth D&D simulation to date, and featured support for up to six-players in co-op mode.[62]" The quote in that citation doesn't seem to support the assertion "despite being real-time". In fact, Baldur's Gate actually has turn-based combat that simulates real-time, I believe, since everyone in combat gets to take their limited actions during a "round" before the next round begins. There's an option to pause at the beginning of each round of combat. That might be a technicality and besides the point, but the statement that it was accurate despite being real-time doesn't look backed up by the source.
    Fixed. However, the comment was meant to differentiate Baldurs Gate from SSI's Gold Box series and Troika's The Temple of Elemental Evil, both of which were turn-based. The difference is not a minor one, and arguably could be interpreted as meaning the Gold Box games were in fact MORE accurate. SharkD  Talk  21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The middle paragraph of the Early 21st century (2000s–present) section: "...followed by the highly anticipated The Temple of Elemental Evil (2003)" There's no source backing up that claim. A little further in that same paragraph: "Although these games developed an enthusiastic fanbase, none of them were financially successful or sold particularly well. ToEE in particular was heavily criticized for shipping with numerous bugs, and caused an outcry when Atari dropped early support for the game. 2005 saw Troika Games in financial trouble, and most of the developers left for other studios, rendering the group dead.[82][83]" Do sources 82 and 83 back up all the statements made in here? Just want to clarify, since they're only at the end of the paragraph.
    Fixed. SharkD  Talk  23:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Independent games and Eastern Europe section, you've got a huge list of games, broken down by genre and hybrid genres, but without any sources. Can you find a way to source this a little better? It seems to be getting a little too precise with the terminology to be unsourced. Alternatively, I would probably be okay with removing the sub-genre terms and just mentioning the different regions and countries the games are from, since that's not a controversial statement.
    Done. I added some refs. Hopefully they will help. SharkD  Talk  00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Covers all the time periods quite well and in depth.
    B. Focused:
    Sticks with the subject.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Not even sure this could be a problem in this article.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable as can be, only edits are continuing improvements.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    All the images check out, but similarly to what I said above, the last Oblivion image needs to be rephrased to avoid time-dependent phrases like "the past decade".
    Done. SharkD  Talk  00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Despite my tons and tons of comments, corrections, and complaints above, this is overall a fantastic article, and I commend you for your efforts. I'm pretty sure you should be able to deal with most of my nitpicking without too much trouble, and this should be able to be promoted in the near future. Putting the article on hold until you have a chance to address the issues I've listed. —Torchiest talkedits 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! Sorry I didn't get to it earlier, but I was gone visiting family for the past week or so. I'll do so now. SharkD  Talk  02:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on all your fixes. I'm fine with the few minor issues you disagreed about, as they're not that crucial. I did some copy editing to clean up a few minor problems, and pulled two of the dead references, as they seemed unnecessary. The Diablo III release link actually works okay; the link checker gave a false alarm, I guess. Other than that, I think it's good to go! Awesome job. —Torchiest talkedits 04:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your assistance!!! SharkD  Talk  04:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removal of image which was under CC from commons[edit]

Hi SharkD, I want to discuss the removal ([1]) of a high-quality screenshot of an actual game which should be preferable before low resolution fair-use images which make the majority of the other images in this article. Also, the given reason sounds strange to me, "image limit"? Such an policy would be new to me. thanks Shaddim (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia frowns on articles having too many Fair Use (i.e. non-free) images in a single article. I fear we are approaching that limit already at five four images. Secondly, high-resolution Fair Use images are a BAD thing. Low-resolution images are preferred. Expect someone in the near future to come along and reduce the size of your image to something smaller. Thirdly, I don't think the image you selected shows us anything new. We already have an image of a first-person, tile-based game (Dungeon Master). Lastly, I don't think LoG is nearly well-known enough to be featured in the article with its own image. SharkD  Talk  20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sharkD, exactly that was my point, the LoG image is NOT a fair use image. It is a much better image because licensed for use on wikipedia (see here File:Legend of Grimrock screenshot 01.jpg)! So this image can be used without restriction and should be prefered before fair use images. :) Also, I think the LoG image is better as it shows the game situation AND an character sheet and inventory. cheers Shaddim (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think LoG occupies an important enough place in VG history. It shows nothing new that the existing images don't already do, and it doesn't show anything better (or even as well) than the existing images already do. And, I can virtually guarantee that another image will be removed to make room for it. It may be notable as a Dungeon Master clone, but that doesn't help our article. SharkD  Talk  20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the up to now limited importance of LoG is an aspect to consider. But maybe this is now to late, as fair use only applies if no free image alternative is available, as far as I know. And we have now a free one. Should we close our eyes? ;) Shaddim (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A free alternative to what? Dungeon master? The Elder Scrolls? Fallout? What?! SharkD  Talk  01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as illustrating example of a 3d realtime roleplay game, a dungeon crawler. Advantages: high resolution, multi purpose (game situation, character sheet, character inventory), a real free image without restrictions and as last point it is actual and visual pleasing picture. Overall, can you please give me link to the policy where the amount of pictures is limited, I want to read and interprete this policy myself, thanks Shaddim (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such a limit hasn't been formalized, AFAIK. SharkD  Talk  19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 08:44, 27 August 2012 [2].

History of Western role-playing video games[edit]

Nominator(s): SharkD  Talk  16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has already passed GAN and I think it is FA-worthy. Please note that I generally only have Internet access on the weekends, and may take a while to respond. SharkD  Talk  16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to oppose, exactly, but I see a few things that need work before this can pass. One relatively straightforward fix needed is to normalize all the citations. Make sure you have as much information for them all as possible, specifically author, title, work, and publisher. Also, get all the date formats to match. Right now, you're using at least three different ones. I'd also like to note for other reviews that the "Diablo III Launching May 15– Digital Pre-Sales NOW OPEN" link is not dead. It's getting a false positive that I discovered in the GAN a couple weeks ago. —Torchiest talkedits 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used the "work" field before. What is its purpose? SharkD  Talk  03:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, which date format is preferred, and do the format of the "date" and "accessdate" fields need to match? SharkD  Talk  05:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"title=" is normally the actual title of the article, while "work=" is either the book, or the website, for example. As for the dates, no format is preferred, they just all need to match one way or the other. —Torchiest talkedits 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the dates for all the Web citations. Also, is it OK to use the "publisher" field for the website? That's what I've always done. SharkD  Talk  19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. In some cases, the publisher is not the same as the site. Hopefully, someone else more knowledgeable can comment on it. —Torchiest talkedits 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation template italicizes the name of the "work", which is a problem because Website names should *not* be italicized. See: Bramwell, Tom (2010-06-14). "Fallout: New Vegas dated". Eurogamer. Eurogamer Network Limited. Retrieved 2010-06-14. SharkD  Talk  22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just wanted to add that I agree with what you said here about not necessarily italicizing websites. I've been using the publisher field for them myself now. —Torchiest talkedits 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was italicize them within the article so that they cancelled each other out, resulting in no italicization. It would be better though if the template itself offered a better solution. SharkD  Talk  04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The ((cite web)) template really needs a "site=" parameter. —Torchiest talkedits 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in the work and publisher fields of all the references except for a few press releases which I don't know how to handle. SharkD  Talk  03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those, I think you would use the name of the news service that is showing it, e.g. Business Wire. —Torchiest talkedits 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, or in the case of something like the Diablo III release information, the publisher should be ActivisionBlizzard. —Torchiest talkedits 04:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break 0

  • Having a section titled "Recent video game consoles and multi-platform titles" is probably not a good idea, it would be better to use a more specific term than the vague "recent".
Fixed. SharkD  Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lastly, veteran game designer Cleve Blakemore's "Golden Era" retro-RPG, Grimoire, became notorious for having been "close to release" for over a decade, leading many to label it as vaporware.[138][139][140] However, Blakemore staunchly denies this" What does the "this" in the second sentence refer to?
He's denying the fact that his game is vaporware. SharkD  Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the few successful video game RPGs not set in the swords-and-sorcery setting, Fallout was notable for its open-ended, largely non-linear gameplay and quest system, tongue-in-cheek humor, and pervasive sense of style and imagery highly reminiscent of Interplay's earlier Wasteland" This is a pretty awkward sentence, particularly at the end. Also you might want to attribute the description of notable.
Hopefully I fixed the awkwardness. As for the game's notability, is this not satisfied by the two citations I provided? SharkD  Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inevitably, 2005 saw Troika Games in financial trouble" There's probably a clearer way to say this.
I removed the "inevitably", but am not sure what other changes to make. SharkD  Talk  23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third game in particular was notable for having a "ton of quests", rewarding exploration and approachable combat, but also for its high system requirements, unfinished feeling and atrocious voice acting." I'd prefer that you attribute these descriptions to critics, rather than saying in Wikipedia's voice that the acting was "atrocious".
Done. SharkD  Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And, collectively, Interplay's Fallout, Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate (particularly the last[67]) are considered examples of some of the finest RPGs ever made." According to whom? Fans? Critics? Industry executives?
Well, I can only cite the opinion of critics. SharkD  Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two expansion packs, Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine, were eventually released, as well as several, smaller downloadable packages costing each between $1–3." too many commas here.
New wording: "Two expansion packs, Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine, were eventually released, as were several smaller downloadable packages costing each between $1–3." SharkD  Talk  01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In [[1997 in video gaming|1997]], Black Isle released the groundbreaking" I'd suggest avoiding the easter egg link here.
Done. SharkD  Talk  01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the goals during development was to reproduce the feel of a live pen-and-paper RPG experience, complete with human dungeon master." Should this be "a human dungeon master" or "human dungeon masters"?
I think the current wording is correct in this case. SharkD  Talk  01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SharkD  Talk  01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:Torchiest took care of those. SharkD  Talk  01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only done a few of the most obvious ones, so far. It'll take a number of passes to thin them out without removing too many. —Torchiest talkedits 01:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are (or were) a few that are linked twice--once in the lead or first occurrence, and once in the sections dedicated to them. Is that too much? SharkD  Talk  03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely okay to link in the lead and then the first time the item appears in the body of the article. I'm not sure about linking again in a dedicated section. I have been removing that type of link so far. —Torchiest talkedits 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished removing duplicate links. But I'm not sure which games are not linked on their first occurrence. —Torchiest talkedits 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break 1

  • Some possible tone issues here and there, such as saying that games were "more or less" the same (first section); talking about level creation "on the fly" (end of action-RPG section) and the need to "wow" audiences (start of last section).
I think "wow" (used as a verb) is correct, but the others can be changed. SharkD  Talk  04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likely to change that "wow" when I get there, unless it's part of a quote. It's too informal. Dementia13 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On the fly" got past me, but it won't fly, either. Fixed. Dementia13 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Decline section it's written that NPCs "became chattier", then the prose refers to "silliness and weirdness" and then calls anthropomorphic characters "embarrassing". I don't have any problem with the choice of words per se, but the quick succession of them kind of feels like the prose has veered from dry and disinterested to light-hearted punditry. As well, I think it's also caused by an overlap between levity in the word choice (see above) and subjective opinion (see below).
"Silly" and "weird" remain, however the others have been fixed. SharkD  Talk  03:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the console/multi-platform section, you've used the word "Ironically" to describe Bioware's change of direction. Dropping "ironic" into the prose is a personal peeve, as it so often indicates OR by a passing editor, and I see this sentence is sourced; but nevertheless I think there should be more specific attribution in the prose as to who said this situation is "ironic". I don't think all opinion needs direct attribution but maybe some of the stronger subjectivity: possible examples include the "embarrassing" animal characters mentioned above and the assertion that "innovation and quality need not necessarily be stymied" in the Indie/Eastern Europe section.
"Ironically" and "embarrassing" were deleted for POV reasons. As for the part about "innovation and quality", I'm actually not sure that statement's strong enough. One reason for the appeal of low-budget "grindhouse" films is that filmmakers were forced to use additional creativity in the absence of large production budgets. That likely applies here, and would be a good point to make, if it could be sourced. Dementia13 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "replayability" (in the Diablo section) surely can't be a word, and is dubious even as a neologism. At least use "replay-value".
From Replay value: "Replay value or replayability is a term found in combination with video games, but it may be also used to describe other kinds of games, movies, music, or theater plays. (...)" Here you can get some G-hits limited to our project's good sources. That said, "replay value" works just as well. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My spell-checker dislikes "replayability" but not "replay-value". bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the discussion above, regarding citations: You may wish to check the MOS to see whether this is life-or-death, but it's my understanding that print mags are italicised, websites not (The Escapist is a debatable exception because while a website it stylises itself with italics; there may be a discussion confirming our practice re. it somewhere).
The problem is that the citation templates automatically italicize the "work" field regardless of whether he source is a website or magazine. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I don't use the templates :) I think you need to enter websites under "publisher" rather than "work", or something. bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates :( I recommend against them. Don't convert a completed article, but for a new article, they're best avoided. Dementia13 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I have fixed all these issues. SharkD  Talk  04:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On criteria 1b and c: I don't know a great deal about RPGs, but based on my familiarity with other genre articles, I think the length, detail, breadth and depth of content look good, as well as the structure. I plan to check some individual sources in the next day or two. That said, a couple of minor points:
  • In the first section there's a sentence listing roguelike games with no other information (see below) or sources.
Clicking on the links takes readers to the games' individual articles. Do I need to provide additional information if these articles already categorize the games as roguelikes? SharkD  Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need secondary sources calling them roguelikes. But it's also pretty much the same issue as below. bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SharkD  Talk  04:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Diablo/action-RPG section there's another list, here of action-RPGs. These ones are sourced, but there's no other information on why they're worthy of note (it's not like an RPG is itself a rare thing by this point) and it thus feels pretty arbitrary and overly-detailed. bridies (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose these could be trimmed a bit. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SharkD  Talk  04:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a copy edit, which will be thorough and may take a couple of days. I typically find phrases that I can't clean up because they're unclear, and I'll point these out on the article's talk page. Dementia13 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on the above points once you're done. SharkD  Talk  20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It should be done by tomorrow, tonight if I'm feeling frisky. A number of the above issues will be, and some have already been, corrected by the copy edit. You'll find that the completed sections flow more smoothly, and are free of the informal and POV language that occasionally appeared. Dementia13 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break 2 Belatedly noticed the copy edit is finished, so here's a start to the source check I promised (will read through to see how the copy edit went later):

That got turned around during the copy edit. Ultima should really be mentioned first, as the title Ultimatum was only used while the game was in production. As for Ultima and Wizardry being the most influential, I do not recall. Barton says (speaking of Ultima), "What the genre really needed was a definitive game (or preferably a series) that would help garner momentum for the genre," and (speaking of Ultima and Wizardry), "Together, these two series helped define the genre."[3]. Comments? SharkD Talk  20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest something like: "Ultima and Wizardry are/were definitive games which began to popularise the genre". bridies (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Ultimatum was only used during production, then perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all. If no released game in that series bore that title, it's essentially trivia. Dementia13 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's trivia. SharkD  Talk  00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "popularity" is what Barton is talking about when he refers to the "momentum" of the genre. Rather, they helped "define" what we expect to see (feature-wise) in an RPG today. SharkD  Talk  00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented the change, but rather than "popularise" I wrote "build", which should encompass both notions. bridies (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to change "popularize" to "feature" and "common" to "as seen in". Barton says (speaking about first-person versus overhead or isometric graphics), "Gamers were just as divided in 1988 over games like Pool of Radiance and Dungeon Master as they are about Neverwinter Nights 2 and The Elder Scrolls IV."[4] SharkD  Talk  20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SharkD  Talk  04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, missed the Elder Scrolls mention as it's above the main DM section. Semantics, but I think what the source is explicitly saying is that the first-person perspective was unusual for the time rather than it being one of the first to use this viewpoint. I've just changed this, hopefully not a big deal. checkY bridies (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on that. SharkD  Talk  22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just got done expanding that section. Hopefully it is what you wanted. SharkD  Talk  05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fine now, content-wise checkY bridies (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that second bit has a source. SharkD  Talk  22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and just removed it. SharkD  Talk  04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK checkY bridies (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break 3

Not sure about these. User:Jagged 85 usually handles all the JRPG stuff. SharkD  Talk  23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: Dragon Quest is most commonly claimed as the first role-playing video game produced for a console (the Atari 2600), though journalist Joe Fielder cites the earlier Dragonstomper bridies (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chipping in here: when I copy edited this article, I noted that the entire last paragraph was out of place. The final section has three paragraphs devoted to trends, and then it has this paragraph devoted to a single piece of vaporware (and despite protests to the contrary, it's vaporware until it gets released). That game would have to be awfully important to justify that paragraph, and I recommend that the entire paragraph be deleted. If the game gets released and becomes a classic, then it will be worthy of inclusion in the article. Dementia13 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and remove that section. I'm OK with it. SharkD  Talk  23:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break 4 I'm doing a second, buff-and-polish copy edit. I'd hoped to finish it tonight but it'll probably be tomorrow. A couple of points on the prose:

I don't recall either. I've ordered the book from my library. I should be getting it shortly. SharkD  Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read that section of the book. Apparently, in Ultima VI the player Avatar wakes up in the underworld and doesn't understand how he got there or why. Later he finds out that his actions in the previous game were causing unexpected problems down below, and that the denizens of the underworld were suffering as a result. He spends the rest of the game trying to fix the problems in both worlds instead of just the one.
I went ahead and removed the remark from the text. SharkD  Talk  20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barton says, "For instance, one of the kingdoms in Might and Magic is stringently anti-male, and an all-male party will not be welcomed. Likewise, character alignment (i.e., good, neutral, or evil) plays a role in which locations the party can visit."[5] SharkD  Talk  00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of common standards meant that hardware manufacturers came up with their own, individual solutions to technical problems instead of the same solution each time. Game and software developers were forced to accommodate each manufacturer's solution when developing a product. This was back in the day before plug-and-play. SharkD  Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the decline. RPGs, simulations, and adventure games all experienced this crash at about the same time. SharkD  Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like, "According to a number of developers during a group interview..."? (Maybe needs to be reworded.) SharkD  Talk  00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the penultimate paragraph? SharkD  Talk  00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The middle paragraph in the Eastern European section. —Torchiest talkedits 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Fairly sizeable condition but I'm putting this here given SharkD's limited time (and mine, right now). I have done another copy edit of the article and FWIW I believe the prose to be of a professional standard. This excepts the handful of minor prose points and a couple of weightier content concerns listed above; of course the support is contingent on these being addressed. Aside from that I believe the length, breadth, detail, structure and general content to be up to the required standard. I'll abstain from commenting on images, FURS etc. as it's not my thing. The other condition regards the attribution and accurate representation of the sources. I've checked a dozen or so claims against their sources - which is about all I have the energy for - and some were fine and the problems raised have all been addressed. But given the significant proportion of checks that raised questions or needed things to be changed, I'd want to see another editor check some more statements against the sources - and for these to come up "clean" - before I could wholeheartedly support. bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Copy edit comments[edit]

This is where I will address issues that need clarification from the main author/editor.

The "specifically..." bit was added by another author. I went ahead and changed it to "including". SharkD  Talk  00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If North America has historically been the predominant producer, it's OK to say so, it just requires a reference. If there are any historical or cultural reasons why this is so, that would be a good inclusion. It appears that there is, as the games originated in US universities, and were influenced by other US games such as D&D and the Avalon Hill games. Dementia13 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a number of European RPGs (including Eastern Europe) have been released in the last decade, as well as a handful in the 1990s. SharkD  Talk  20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just means I don't have dates for those games. Would it be better to add "(????)" or "(19??)" after them to indicate that the exact dates are unknown? SharkD  Talk  00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the dates are necessary. I recommend to leave them blank if unknown. I can't find that it's specified in WP:MOS. The only information I can find is that the first date of publication is considered essential information, but that specifically refers to lists of literary works. I don't see why software titles wouldn't be done the same way, but it's not specified, and this is not a list. My instinct is, don't sweat it, unless you need to disambiguate two games that share the same title. Dementia13 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the latest version of NetHack was released in 2003, so we should probably remove the comment entirely, or switch to past tense as in "was one of the oldest games in development." SharkD  Talk  20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut it, because I don't see how it remains relevant, unless it's the only game, or one of few, to have been developed for so long. Dementia13 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. I think only a few games have been developed for so long. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Present tense is OK. However, note that the source itself is five years old. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you remove the date? I can't see where this is stated in the article. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any notable iOS games except maybe those by Spiderweb Software. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's something the author made up. Removing it is OK. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about this. One author says one thing; another says a different thing. Both are relatively recent, however. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interplay is "they". SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"IP" is intellectual property. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is well-known within the indie RPG community for his "vaporware" title, as well as his extreme political views and noxious Internet personality. IMO, no discussion of indie RPGs is complete without mentioning Blakemore, just as no discussion of indie space sims is complete without mentioning Derek Smart. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copy edit is complete. I'll check back in, in case something's changed, or I missed something. Dementia13 (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll start on the other FAC comments tomorrow. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Western role-playing video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Western role-playing video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD Projekt Red[edit]

The article could probably use a section just for this studio. ➧datumizer  ☎  13:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But some Dark Eye games should be mentioned somewhere too. ➧datumizer  ☎  13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western/Japanese split[edit]

We should have one article that encompasses all RPG video game history. Then splitting out a part might work, but not a original "Western" something name. In general, a Japanese firm may produce a English "Western" RPG game, it's not about geography. Right now, this likely fails the GA status. IgelRM (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories