Talk:Lock's Quest

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lock's Quest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GraziePrego (talk · contribs) 06:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pick up this one! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great thank you! I see a bot has just removed the image I placed on the article but I think it’s done so erroneously. I might fix that when I have time. GraziePrego (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I think this one needs a little work and have provided some feedback below. Happy to discuss any aspect of the review. Other than the below issues, it's nice to see work being done on DS-era games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much- I will get to work on those comments. And DS-era games are always fun to work on I think :) this game is a favourite of mine from that era so a nice one to get to GA. GraziePrego (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vrxces, I have finished going through your comments. Thank you very much for your suggestions, I have added a lot of useful info :) Happy to do more of whatever you think needs tweaking. GraziePrego (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @GraziePrego:! I think we're almost there - there's a few more things I have added below that are relevant to the GAN. Happy to help you with these given we are on the home stretch but hopefully nothing too major. 00:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished those comments, thank you. Interestingly there's quite a lot of disagreement about the release date- september 8,9,10 are all listed on various websites. Reliable articles say September 9 though so that's what I have changed it too. In terms of the re-release, even with removing those reviews it's still definitely fair to say that it had a very negative response in reliable sources. GraziePrego (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Generally all good!

• • I forgot: the Gameplay section tends to precede the plot section.

• The re-release section is not usual for the WP:VG/MOS but works well where it is.

Is the article generally well-written? Yes, no typos I can see, other than:

• Reception P1 S2 - this year.", receiving should be a split sentence or remove the period.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? See below:

• The gameplay section seems to be too short and light on detail to be considered to cover the main aspects of the game, and could be fleshed out. The section describes the key gameplay loop, but omits important details. A cursory look at the game suggests detail could focus on the multiple game modes, including the Main, Siege and Vs. mode, the relevance of the split DS display to the control scheme and player actions, resource management using Source, and the health/damage system.

• • Thanks for putting in the point about the multiplayer mode. This section is still a little light, I think, and still does not clearly delineate the differences between Main and Siege modes. It's ok to spell things out in a little more detail here. Otherwise it's alright.

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? No issues from a spot check.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? See below:

• The cover art is incorrectly attributed. Please credit the relevant developer and publisher.
• The Inside Gamer reference for the cover art is also dead. A new source may be needed.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination? See below:

Lead

• Citations are generally discouraged from placing in the lead of the article.

• Per WP:VG/LEAD, specific release dates are a bit redundant and should be addressed in the infobox and the release section. There's no need to get into the regional release dates here.

• The lead omits a summary of useful information. A sentence on the premise and gameplay and another on how the game was received. I understand it's a short article though.

• • For instance: Upon release, Lock's Quest received generally favorable reviews, with critics praising X and critiquing Y.

Gameplay

• Consider adding a screenshot as under WP:VG/MOS. Remember to correctly attribute the developer-publisher and provide a rationale for the shot; typically that it demonstrates a notable aspect of gameplay discussed in the article.
  • Looking good. You probably don't need as much detail in the text box given how short the overarching section is - one sentence is usually enough. Suggest something like: Players monitor the map and timer on the top screen, and control Lock with touch controls on the lower screen.

Plot

• As per WP:VG/PLOT, sourcing generally isn't needed in this section and sources such as the GOG website are not particularly helpful. I think you can omit that citation.

• It is implied that... - with WP:VG/PLOT if it requires interpretation or analysis, unless a reliable source has discussed the plot, it's worth omitting.

Development

• You might like to mention the game had a working title of Construction Combat: Lock's Quest.
• The release date(s) of the game supported by a source(s) should be included here.

• • Unfortunately as per WP:VG/S Metacritic is not a reliable source for a release date. Is there any reliable press release or article out there that mentions when the game was out at the time? I can help with this if you can't find anything on a second look.

• The press release seems to be from 2 April? Do you have a direct source from 1 April?
• The IGN quote is pre-release speculation and not useful information; does other pre-release commentary substantiate that the game received praise for its potential as a strategy title?

Reception

• This section is missing a bunch of reliable WP:VG/S review sources that could better flesh out this section, including from Destructoid,^[1] GameSpy,^[2] GamesRadar^[3] and Pocket Gamer.^[4]

• In line with that, this section really needs a thematic layout with topic sentences and quotes around certain aspects of praise or criticism of the game. I understand this is a bit of work but when there's at least ten reliable reviews the coverage is too wide to try and tackle this section as high-level sentence-by-sentence summaries of each source.
  • Great work. You don't need to subdivide this section though, suggest removing the headings and just keeping each section to a medium-sized paragraph with a topic sentence for each i.e. Reviewers expressed mixed opinions on the game's story. or for shorter ones The music was also praised.

• The 1Up review link is dead: is there a reliable source for its review score and quote? If it is genuinely unretrievable, the utility of putting the review in the template is a little limited.

• The Sydney Morning Herald score is not really necessary to include in the body if not put in the template. It is a general WP:RS but given the preference for WP:VG/S-type sources, it probably doesn't need to be in there anyway.

• Did the re-release of Lock's Quest receive any reviews?

• • I would only cite the reviews here that are reliable or situational per WP:VG/S; the Hey Poor Player and KBmod reviews are not really reliable. Is the coverage still accurate to call "mostly negative" after removing these? Otherwise, great finds.

• Did THQ Nordic end up publishing the remaster expected to come out on May 2017? What was the release date of the remaster, and is there a reliable source for that?