Talk:Dead Cells

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Souls dispute[edit]

The assertion in the current article in the gameplay section is this:

"Permanent upgrades that affect future play-throughs can be obtained in a manner similar to the Souls series."

My contention is firstly that this is not actually contained in the referenced citation; what is contained is two separate sentences:

"But every time you die, you get stronger, along with a chance to re-roll the dice of fate to see what vicious weaponry you can gather this time." and "It styles itself after Dark Souls but, really, you should leave those assumptions at the gate."

Saying either that the game styles itself after the Souls series or that you can obtain permanent upgrades that effect future play-throughs would be correct however placing them both in the same sentence connects them in a manner which is both not true and not implied in the original article. The permanent upgrades you obtain are not similar to the souls series, rather what is similar to the souls series is the 'style' which I'm reading to mean visual aesthetic but which regardless is definitely not in reference to the roguelike nature. Secondly, even if this were a sentence or idea expressed in the article, it wouldn't be a good source to cite because the concept of repeatedly starting over from the beginning of the game and upgrading equipment in an iterative process is not present in the Souls series of games and so the comparison is inherently nonsensical. I fixed this the first time by just removing the second half of the sentence although I suppose it could also be done by just separating this into two sentences as in the original article:

"Permanent upgrades that affect future play-throughs can be obtained. The game styles itself in a manner similar to the Souls series" or some more pleasing version of this.

Thoughts?

Delirious-Monk (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue that the Souls-as-currency aspect is what the Dark Souls nod was to, but when I look at more sources, I agree that you are right, that the Souls-reference is specifically more to combat, difficult enemies, and frequent deaths. The Souls-as-currency mechanic is related but not part of the way sources describe it. I have made that change. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! (not sure how to properly indent here, I'm hoping it's double colon like that) Delirious-Monk (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Roguelike" / "Metroidvania" dispute[edit]

This game isn't a Roguelike, a word with a rigid technical meaning, so I changed it to 'roguelite' which is the more accepted term of art for games with roguelike elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.25.250 (talk • contribs)

  • The industry does not have a hard definition of what a roguelike is (it's only purist that demand it be something specific). We go with "roguelike" as that's also how most sources and the developers describe it. --Masem (t) 13:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is described as a "rogue-lite" on the official website, so this article should be updated accordingly. Saying "that's how the developers describe it" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.65.147 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We go by what reliable sources call it, not what their website or the catalog pages say. They have said in interviews with reliable sources it is a "roguevania" and explain that as a "roguelike Metroidvania", and that's how most other sources describe it as well. --Masem (t) 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why the official website for the game wouldn't be considered a "reliable source." Regardless, you just said "it is a 'roguevania'" which is entirely my point. Roguevania is NOT the same thing as a Metroidvania, so this article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.65.147 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, they say in interviews "roguevania" and proceed to then say thats a "roguelike Metroidvania". That's why we use those terms. --Masem (t) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Masem. Look, you didn't accept it when I provided 5 different news sources for modifying the definitions on the Metroidvania page. You're sounding very arbitrary in your lack of consistency. For the same reason, how is PCGamesN valid for this "roguevania" definition that's barely used. And why are you even referring to Steam for genres? Anyone can tag a game, and the company itself can refer to a game as whatever it wants. Doesn't mean the general community will accept it as such. Dead cells is linear, barely has ability-gating, doesn't have an interconnected world, and has no backtracking. It's entirely a rogue platformer. It has [none of] the hallmark MV elements. --HSukePup (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just realized I completely left out some words in the previous comment and ended up saying the exact opposite of what I meant. I've re-added them inline in brackets. I still feel like we're doing gamers a disservice by mis-categorizing Dead Cells as a roguelike and Metroidvania. --HSukePup (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Storefront pages and catalog pages are not reliable sources, in part that they may not be under control of the developer. We look to what we know developers are saying in reliable sources and what reliable sources themselves say. So we're not touching the Steam definition. Numerous source have called it a roguelike ("dead cells" + roguelike on google news get 4400 hits), and Metroidvania (3900 for that). I understand the issue that there's almost no backtracking (short of the teleporter system) but the trapping of powerups and the like associated with Metroidvanias are there. I did keep it to roguelike action platformer ... with Metroidvania-inspired elements, which is fully fair given all sources. --Masem (t) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I do want to stress, the key is reliable sources what I pointed out on the Metroidvania talk page was that those were not reliable. (particular random reddit posts). --Masem (t) 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • For clarification, the citations were all various news sources. The reddit links were just for extra context from a previous discussion. --HSukePup (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Miucin[edit]

Nothing about the Filip Miucin controversy? MRNasher (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the review was about this game, it has little to do about this game, and more about IGN and that editor. As such, it is covered at IGN appropriately, just not here. --Masem (t) 15:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dead Cells/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this on. If you don't hear back from me by Sunday next, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake. Can you take a look at this soon? If you're on a summer/winter Wikibreak, then by all means, you can do this later. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Lead/Infobox
  • The lead as a whole is a little rambling. Could you be more concise and get it down to two or three paragraphs?
  • "At times..." - What times? It's specified in Gameplay it's from dropped enemies, but this implies an irregularity in drop rates.
  • "Production of Dead Cells began after Motion Twin planned development for a follow-up to their previous browser game Die2Nite, with Dead Cells acting as concept of their previous title focusing around constant combat." - This sentence is a little confusingly worded, particularly the second half. How was Dead Cells "acting as concept"?
  • The producer and lead designer are mentioned in the Development section, but not in the infobox. Meanwhile the composer and engine mentioned in the infobox, while there's nothing about them in the text at all.
Gameplay
  • You've called it a "rogue-lite" in the lead, and a " 2D side-scrolling "roguevania", a combination of procedurally-generated roguelike games and action-exploration-based Metroidvania games." in the Gameplay. Which is it?
    • An IP changed that to "rogue-lite". There was a dispute on the talk page about this, and consensus is to call it a roguelike-metroidvania and elaborate on the term in gameplay (I.e. "roguevania") CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, in the lead the Cells are referred to as "in-game currency", but aren't referred to or linked as such in Gameplay.
  • I'd put the Twitch info in another section (Release as a suggestion). It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the actual gameplay mechanics.
  • "...obtained during a playthrough.[6][2]" - Refs should be in numerical sequence.
  • "Levels are procedurally generated by the merging of predesigned sections in a random configuration, creating levels with many different placements of enemies and items." - Maybe substitute "areas" or "dungeons" or some other synonym in the second instance of "levels" to avoid repetition.
Plot
  • This whole section feels rather rambling, and at times contradicts itself (Prisoner described as mute, then later is referred to as saying something). This could be trimmed down to three or four paragraphs without losing anything significant and still communicating the story. As an example, the Queen of the Sea section is concise and understandable.
  • Not strictly necessary, but is there a citation usable to confirm the NPCs and story delivery methods?
  • Plot synopsis doesn't strictly need references.
  • "..., as well as alternative ending." - "alternative endings" or "an alternate ending".
    • I completely rewrote the Plot section to be shorter and I addressed the other issues. Does it make more sense now? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • You don't have to use the same reference four times in the same paragraph, especially with no other reference to break up the sequence.
  • "Motion Twin's producer, Steve Filby, said that The Binding of Isaac was a significant influence, as there, the way the game proceeds "as entirely based on the choice of items that you get. That's the fun of the game."" - As a suggested alternative, "Motion Twin's producer Steve Filby cited The Binding of Isaac as a significant influence, highlighting its player-determined and item-driven gameplay."
Release
  • This subsection's got enough information to be its own section.
  • On that theme, the sentences should be condensed into three paragraphs at most. Having standalone sentences or one-to-two short sentences makes the section look choppy.
  • "Motion Twin stated they are planning on console" - This is a past event, so "were" is the word to use here.
Reception
  • This section is problematic. I can see what's been gone for, but it's not well executed (example of a well-executed version here). Overall there are too many quotes, and too much repetition of "the game". I think this may need a top-down rewrite, but I've included other things I noticed below.
  • "Dead Cells received positive reviews from critics. The Xbox One version received "universal acclaim", and the PlayStation 4, PC, Nintendo Switch, and iOS versions received "generally favorable" reviews according to review aggregator website Metacritic." - Uncited.
  • "Similar acclaim was foused around the game's constant action and combat.[51]" - This is one reviewer's opinion, were there others who agreed? Also "focused".
  • "lacking or unclear[54][55]" - Needs fullstop.
  • Note on sales. A recent discussion on the VG WikiProject has determined that only significant early milestones and the current major total are needed, otherwise it just reads like a hype list. You could rephrase the developer input as; 'Twim Motion" described sales of the Switch port as "insane"'.
  • In the Awards, those awards in text can be incorporated into the table. It just looks odd at the moment.
References/Notes
  • Is the second note important? It's uncited, and just looks like a piece of Wikia trivia.
  • You include a link in the page to a "Making of" from an acceptable source, but don't use it at all in the text. Why?
    • That was User:Masem, actually. I'll take it out because it is not necessary at the moment. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GQ...is an odd choice, if it's the one I've linked, but acceptable I suppose. TheGamer, DoubleXP and whatoplay aren't confirmed as reliable.
  • I know it's the developer's Twitter account, but is there a third party confirmation?
  • Gamasutra should be marked as dead, as it now redirects to Game Developer. All Gamasutra links should be archived if possible.
  • The references as a whole need filling out properly in places (multiple with missing authors and/or unlinked websites/publishers, some with missing dates), and archiving wherever possible.

@CollectiveSolidarity: That's all the stuff I noticed. Putting this article On Hold. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake I have rewritten the Reception and Plot sections, condensed everything, checked all the refs, and archived them. Anything else I need to do? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CollectiveSolidarity: Looks okay for GA now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to GA by CollectiveSolidarity (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough GA (not a creation) and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out and is interesting (note MOS:STRAIGHT on quotes). No textual issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dead_Cells&oldid=1206906633"