Talk:Resident Evil 6/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one as well. I always like reviewing big titles like this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: just pinging to make sure you haven't forgotten! JAGUAR  16:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish the review tomorrow. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ninth instalment of the Resident Evil series - Should be the ninth "main" installment in the series.
  • The lead needs more information about the game's gameplay.
  • The developers define the game's genre as "dramatic horror", although promotional materials for the Japanese version still classify the game as survival horror. should be moved to the next paragraph about development.
  • Isn't the main point of criticism is that the game is no longer a survival horror game? This should be included as well.
  • You should mention that the three campaigns intersect at some points, 4-player co-op is possible.[1] These campaigns seem to have different styles as well.[2]
  • The opening sentence mentions that they're interwoven, but I've added the rest. Thanks. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game is twice as long as RE5. The article should mention that.[3]
  • I think that Agent Hunt and Mercenaries mode should be split and moved to a new paragraph in the gamepaly section. There should be more information about the two modes. For example, Mercenaries mode on PC has a mode called "No Mercy".[4] It has a timer, melee kills add time etc. There is some more information on "Agent Hunt" in this source as well.
  • Added more and brought it into its own paragraph. I thought the Agent Hunt source was a bit short and vague, but I expanded it to the best of my understanding. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game's control is more updated. You can now move and shoot in this game, slide, roll etc. in this game[5]
  • Different characters have different abilities. This should be mentioned.[6]
  • The game features a lot of QTEs. This should be mentioned as well.[7]
  • Added. I didn't know what QTEs were! #noob JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain enemies drop skill points when killed, which can be picked up and spent on upgrades such as increased weapon effectiveness or specific ammunition drops - You can remove your companion character as well.[8]
  • During the game, there are non-linear events that require different approaches, such as shooting at zombies, prying through a door, and attempting to locate keys in a vehicle - Unclear. The examples listed don't seem to match with the description.
  • I've removed this sentence because it's already covered in the source which describes the game's new innovations. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a stamina bar, and something called quickshot as well.[9]
  • You should mention that the screenshot is depicting the game's Agent Hunt mode.
  • The plot section is a bit too long.
  • The 2 sources in the plot section seem unnecessary.
  • and two large BOW's - What is "BOW"?
  • I'm not going to pretend to even know, as I removed all mentions of it! JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ada is killed by an assassin, and then she aids Leon and Helena. It seems like that something is missing.
  • I couldn't find this in the plot section, so I'm not sure how to proceed. JAGUAR  13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they meet up briefly, Chris reveals to Jake that he was the one who killed his father, but Jake resists the urge to kill him, saying that there are more important things than his want for revenge - Does not sound like something important.
  • Haos makes one last attempt to kill Chris but is killed itself by a powerful lightning charge from Piers - "itself" is not needed.
  • The development section seems to be way too short for a major release like this.
  • Sources familiar with the project indicated that the series would return to its roots and be "brutally scary" - Rumors should not be mentioned. It is obviously not true, in this case.
  • The character of Jake Muller was also designed to attract new fans to the series - According to Famitsu, Jake is a character that was "designed to be someone today’s young people can empathize with"[10]
  • On 10 April 2012, a second trailer was released which detailed the game's plot, and also revealed that the release date had been pushed back from 20 November 2012 to 2 October 2012 - The game's delay is more important than the trailer. I don't think the trailer should be mentioned.
  • Resident Evil 6 was re-released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One with all DLC on 29 March 2016. - The title's name should be in italic. It should have some graphical updates. The article should reflect that.
  • Development of the game started in 2010. [11]
  • Already mentioned in the first sentence, but thanks for the source - added. JAGUAR  21:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of sources about the game's development.
  • Sales target should be moved to the section about the game's sales.
  • Development section does not mention the PC version release date.
  • Source 31 does not cover anything mentioned in that paragraph.
  • Added sources. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate this. Removed. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the reception section's topic sentence is The game's storyline and themes were praised by critics, but then the paragraphs covers things from graphics, AI, to controls.
  • A reviewer from Game Informer stated that despite the game's minor flaws - Examples of "minor flaws"?
  • He didn't say, so I rephrased this. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Destructoid cited Resident Evil 6 as not only a "step back" for the series, but a "step back for commonplace, unassuming action-shooters" - Did he mention why?
  • ScrewAttack included it on their 2012 list of top ten Capcom mistakes - Did he provide a reason?
  • I've had to remove this entirely because I couldn't access the reference at all. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the slow start and negative reviews, - "mixed" reviews.
  • Capcom blamed "inadequate organizational collaboration" for the game's poor sales. [12][13]
  • What about the future of the franchise after this colossal disappointment?
  • Citation style is a bit inconsistent, with some being incomplete. Should be "XXX" instead of "XXX.com". Source 13, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 59 have citation problems.
  • I should have them all sorted out. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if source 26 is reliable or not. Here is a better alternative.
  • Is XboxAchievements a reliable source?
  • Source 42 is dead.
  • "Cannot display due to robot.txt". Great. Since it wasn't being used in the body, I removed it. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The article is well-written, but it is missing a lot of information. The lead does not summarize the entire article, and both the gameplay and development section do not have enough information, and the scope of the reception section is too narrow. I am going leave the article on hold for a week. When all the issues mentioned above are addressed, the article should be good to go! AdrianGamer (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review AdrianGamer! It took me a very long time, but I should have all of the issues addressed. I've made use of the sources you have given me, and in such expanded the development section and clarified the reception section. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all the issues fixed, the article is good to go! However, if you intend to further improve the article, I think expanding both the development and the reception section would be a great idea. Anyway, Resident Evil 6 is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review! I've never played this game, nor do I plan to judging from the negative reception! I agree about the expansion, I will do that if I plan to take this to FAC. JAGUAR  15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil_6/GA1&oldid=1085919430"