Talk:Development of Red Dead Redemption 2/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: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fitting that I come out of WP hibernation to take this, in part because of the massive backlog at WPVG currently, in part because of my affinity for the series, but also that I have a history of collaborating with you on content for another little game Rockstar did a few years' back. I've outlawed away countless hours into this one and look forward to diving into the article. Expect my comments in full by next year... ;-) CR4ZE (t • c) 15:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if your other noms are still awaiting comments by the time I'm finished with this one, I may be able to take a look at them as well. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed revision (as of 0:02, December 9, 2019)

Lead

  • The lead section here identifies the topic and summarises the body of the article adequately.

1 Production

  • "... and found the idea of a gang "too compelling to turn away"" meaning not clear here, and I note the wording is pulled directly from the source. Perhaps try "the idea of a gang narrative", "gang drama", "gang story" or similar.
  • "to facilitate development among 1,600 people ..." this could be expounded to state that there were 1,600 developers, but a full team (composed of who exactly?) of more than 2,000.

1.1 Story and setting

  • "Individual pedestrian actors had scripts of around 80 pages in length" in total or each?
  • "The citizens in the game feature a contrast between rich and poor" awkward statement: perhaps simply drop "feature a ..."?
  • "... Houser described it as "more like Thackeray than Hemingway", with a wide variety of characters" this won't mean much to casual readers. Could you illustrate what is meant here a little better?
  • "The developer redesigned the opening chapter throughout development for its extensive length, which Houser considered important due to its placement within the game" the meaning of this statement is unclear, so I think this sentence could be recast.
  • I think this section could be better organised. The second paragraph here would be far more interesting to open the section with. The current first paragraph fits better either second-last or last (and the image could be moved there, too).

1.2 Character development

  • "700 of whom share the game's 500,000 lines of dialogue" what is meant here? The other 500 voice actors don't share the game's dialogue?
  • "a total of around 60 or 70 cameras were used" at once or in total?
  • Perhaps this could be rephrased slightly by putting "total" at the end?
  • "which could be demonstrated in a previsualization format" so they were rendered in this format?
  • "Unsworth noted that Arthur is controlled by neither the storytellers nor the player, but consists of "a delicate push and pull between the two"" Arthur consists of a delicate push and pull? Please clarify.
  • "Davis felt that Dutch was motivated ... powerful figures in their areas" the "he" that is the subject of this sentence switches between Davis and Dutch: please recast to avoid confusion.
  • "... according to Davis ..." just checking punctuation here—is it the first part or the second part of this sentence being attributed to Davis, or is it both? Just double-check what is meant here, and action if necessary.
  • "and enjoyed her equality to Arthur instead of a love story" what does this mean?
  • Again, the organisation of this section is not perfect, although I wonder how pressing a concern this would be within the scope of a GA review. There's enough material here to be forked into multiple sections, or perhaps it could be rearranged. (out-of-scope)
  • The structure of the final paragraph (about the supporting characters) itself could be refined a little. Is the first sentence the best way to open the paragraph? I note that content here is forked off to a different article, although I wonder if readers here would want to know a little more about Sadie Adler's characterisation/ development? (again, out-of-scope: explore this on your own time)

1.3 Technical and gameplay development

  • "some sort of revelation that made Arthur feel different different from what, exactly?

1.4 Music production

  • "At one point during development, he used around 15 stems" I've already fixed this for you, but I note that the wikilink here (to stem (music)) was incorrect. A stem in music notation is different to what Jackson refers to here.

2.2 Promotion

  • "A trailer released on August 9 ..." the date given by the source is 4 May 2018; also, the accessdate field says 2 May. The third trailer (in the sentence prior) was released on this date. Are you sure you've used the correct source here, and is the statement correct?
  • "while the "Ultimate Edition" features additional online content" does the "Ultimate Edition" of the game also feature the single-player content from the "Special Edition"? If so, say "features further additional online content" or similar.
  • There's no examples or sourcing here to cover the game's viral marketing strategies.

Media

References

  • All citations used in this article appear to be correctly formatted and taken from reliable sources.
  • Spot-checks done on #2, #4, #5, #10, #15, #27, #28.

Outside GA scope

I'd like to offer some friendly suggestions to improve the article that are not required for this review. You may consider these after (or during) the review should you wish, or not at all.

  • (lead): "Rockstar had tested ... to the consoles" → could this sentence be recast to avoid saying "the consoles" twice? Similar observation in second sentence of 1.3 Technical and gameplay development.
  • Check for verb disagreements (eg "the team was not specifically inspired by film or art but rather real locations, noting that they ...")
  • (1.1 Story and setting) Rockstar designed the game world so that it responds to the ongoing narrative" having played through the game, I know there is more to unpack here (if it can be supported through reliable sources). How does the game world change through the narrative?
  • (1.2 Character development) "The team attempted to give the player more freedom with Arthur's relationship with other characters" although this is expanded upon in the next part of the sentence, it remains unclear how player actions change Arthur's relationships.
  • He also took inspiration from the "pretty tough dudes" in his home town for John's personality" where is this exactly?
  • (1.3 Technical and gameplay development) "... instead of truly feeling like the characters" the word choice italicised here doesn't fit well with this sentence.
  • I'm 50/50 on whether the third paragraph (about character interactions/camp) is best fit here or elsewhere in the article. Some parts of this paragraph could be incorporated elsewhere? This echoes my other observations about the article's structure, but isn't actionable within the scope of GAN,
  • "Rockstar decided to add letterboxing to the game's cutscenes" not 100% on how this fits into the paragraph.
  • (1.4 Music production) "The game's music regularly reacts ..." it would be nice to furnish an example here.
  • "they had to "push it almost until you break it, and then you swing back"" push what exactly? Part of this quote could be paraphrased and explained better.
  • "Pavlovich wanted the diverse sounds to add to the atmosphere without distracting the player" this is essentially already stated by Jackson in the first paragraph.
  • After reading the article, I was left with the impression that the amount of research into the game world design itself was not as thorough as in other areas. I was left wanting to know more in this respect. For all the preamble and journalistic buzz about Rockstar's new outing in the American Frontier, the amount of content here seems rather thin. I'm not sure if you've exhausted the pool of sources available about the world design itself—perhaps you already have—and I don't know what's in the roadmap next for this article, however I'm sure this is something that would be brought up at the more scrupulous processes beyond GAN.
  • As I've spelled out above, if I'm holding the article to a standard higher than what is required for this review, I think there are some structural issues that would need to be addressed if the article moves forward. This wouldn't inhibit its meeting of the GA criteria, however. The prose mostly shines, although I could nitpick certain spots. If you are ever interested in going further with this, I'd be happy to provide further comments or perhaps a more extensive copy-edit (although you mightn't like all prospective changes that I would make—just a heads-up :-p)

On hold for as long as necessary. That's it for now! CR4ZE (t • c) 08:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure to see you back here, CR4ZE! Thank you for taking the time to leave your thoughts. I've made some changes based on your comments. Unfortunately, some of your out-of-scope comments are a little difficult at this time, especially when referring to specific examples or more detail into the game world design; as I'm sure you're aware, Rockstar staff do not share their thoughts and processes much (and certainly not in too much depth), and they've only gotten worse at this over the years. Should I take this article any further, I will certainly look around to see if I have missed anything, but I believe I have exhausted the pool of sources (at least for now). Let me know if you have any more thoughts. I may take you up on that offer too, though I'm well aware of how thorough you can be... – Rhain ☔ 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for tending to my remarks so promptly, Rhain. I note that you've actioned on all my concerns, except where noted in your comment above. Just to clarify, it's acceptable to refer to a "team" using the singular "is/was" instead of "are/were" (although I prefer the latter), but the example cited wasn't grammatically correct. I'll happily agf that you've done all the research you can about open world design, but it is a shame to not be able to elaborate with this further as I do feel the reader will be left wanting to know more. Following on from my comments about structural issues, perhaps you could explore moving some content around into sections that discuss art design, mission design etc; I still can't say the article is structured as well as it could be. Again, please don't hesitate to give me a buzz should you require comments at a higher assessment level. All the best, CR4ZE (t • c) 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well done! CR4ZE (t • c) 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_Red_Dead_Redemption_2/GA1&oldid=933196678"