Talk:Chulip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChulip 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
October 23, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Genre?[edit]

What type of genre is this game? Is it just a sand box game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.112.195 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Chulip's format is closest to that of the graphical adventure. It's not really a dating sim, since there's no real courtship that goes on in the game--rather, players spend most of their time talking with neighbors, exploring, saving up money to buy train passes and tools, and trying to figure out the conditions necessary before they'll be able to kiss their neighbors or underground residents, which results in awards of money and increased resilience. Most of what I know about the game came from this critique over at fourhman.com[1] (That's why I wouldn't make the changes myself--I'm working from second-hand knowledge here--but it seems like what little information that's available here is misleading.) 12.186.193.243 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese page describes its genre as a roleplaying game, which makes sense, as you have to level up as well as keep and manage an inventory while doing all these quest-like objectives. Of course, it's not a classical Japanese role-playing game in with its combat... Urk, now that I think about it I'm not 100% sure if I should change the genre or leave it as is. Jecrell (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand this is a modified life simulation game like the Harvest Moon series also published by Natsume. -Thibbs (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Name[edit]

Isn't the official name of this title Chu♥lip instead of Chulip? Going by analogy from the film I ♥ Huckabees and the game We ♥ Katamari, it seems that the "♥" symbol is not allowed/recommended in titles which means that we need to find the official transliteration of "Chu♥lip" before we can change the article's name. It seems clear, however, that the article must be renamed. Does anyone know of any good sources on this topic? -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has to be renamed at all, since most linked sources happily discuss it as 'Chulip', so that would be the the most easily recognized name and the heart seems to have here more a symbolic function than a placeholder one. It should be sufficient to elaborate in the lead if anything can be found out about the heart. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with this, but I think at the very least it would be appropriate to set up redirects for the phrase "Chu heart lip" or "Chu love lip" or both. I've only ever heard the game called "Chu heart lip," although this was colloquially and not in any RSes. I'll set up a redirect for "Chu heart lip" tomorrow. Does this sound good for now? -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with redirects from my side, but I don't know the game and this discussion only showed on my screen because I deleted what was previously at this place before Chulip (video game) gor moved here, so I took the opportunity to point out that a move is neither mandatory nor uncontroversial. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Redirects done. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    see comments below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Plot is lacking (what a weird thing to say for a video game article:) ); see comment below
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    "The objective of the game is to successfully kiss various NPCs" -- that is not directly related to the screenshot, it should say what the screenshot is of.
     Done — Hibana (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I see talk discussion about genre, is it reliably adventure?
    •  Done I've added sources to the genre for both adventure and simulation. If this is insufficient, perhaps a renewed discussion on WP:VG talk page is in order. — Hibana (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was there one? Anyway, I think this is sufficient. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot doesn't explain game ending or anything related to the searching for pieces. Is the plot just a series of puzzles?
    •  Done I've done my best to summarize the plot, but this game is so wacky that attempting to explain precisely how these pieces are incidently obtained would appear very random and unorganized to the average reader. Let me know if I need to change what I've done, or please make a suggestion as to how I should do so. — Hibana (talk)
  • "strengthening the hero's heart" -- does this refer to gaining more health?
  • Gameplay mentions hazards, but does not list any. What are the hazards of the game, do they make the player lose health?

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor issues, but this looks fine for a GA. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chulip. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chulip&oldid=1200938956"