Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blade Runner (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blade Runner (video game)

I have changed the article around a bit in the past month - re-organised the sections, added a Reception section, references and images. I am now looking for outside opinion on the article and for ways to improve it further. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • On the issue of the images; all of the images are claimed as fair use, and given that our current standards on fair use have gotten a lot stricter over the last few monthes I am interested in knowing if all the added images are in fact needed. If not, then it may be a good idea to consider removing one or two from the article to better your odds of clearing higher grades.
  • Image:BR game McCoy.jpg is currently used in a section dedicated to characters, therefore I would suggest coupling his fair use screenshot tag with the {{Non-free character}} template.
  • The fourth paragraph of the gameplay section contains the sentence "Evidence is stored in McCoy's KIA (Knowledge Integration Assistant) and is organised for easy reference." Unless you have a pressing reason to keep the abreviation before the actual phrase might I suggest rearranging the order so that the phrase Knowledge Integration Assistant comes before KIA?
  • The last paragraph of the gameplay section does not explain why it is important to determine if the subject is human or replicant, and as a result it seems a little confusing to me (I haven't played the game).
  • The second character description in the character section end with the line "Her attitude towards McCoy at the opening of the game is playful, with a considerable amount of condescension towards the rookie; however suggesting that he ask her regards a possible romantic relationship." To me, this reads ackwardly; is there a way to maybe rephrase this or trimm some wording out of it?
• Overall, it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've carried out the suggestions made. Nreive (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s) -- WP:MILHIST collaboration
  1. The plot section is quite choppy. Paragraph 3 and 4 can be combined. The prose could do with a bit of attention here, as well.
  2. From memory, and I played the game nearly 10 years ago, the character's apartment was a duplicate of Deckers' in the film. Is this worth mentioning?
  3. The quote "This is not a game about the movie, it is a game about the movie's environment. It's about the tension and emotion of the movie. To us, that's what Blade Runner was really all about" appears misplaced in a section about the technical aspects of the game.
  4. Also from memory, but weren't there a number of alternate endings depending on decisions made during the game? This doesn't seem to be mentioned.
  5. The game leans heavily on the Philip K. Dick novel, as well as the film. The novel is not mentioned in the article, though.
  6. My perception is that the game is far more praised now than it was upon its release. Has there been a critical reappraisal of the game? It's worth trying to dig up some more recent articles, rather than relying on contemporary reviews.
  7. The lead will need to be expanded if you're planning to go for higher level peer reviews.
  8. The "Film references" section seems misplaced at the end and should be moved further up. I'd suggest you end with the "Reception" section, ideally with current opinion on the importance/quality of the game.
  9. There is no mention of the commercial success of the game. Westwood stopped making adventure games after this, didn't they? Did the game flop in stores?
• Overall, a good start. I hope those comments were useful for you. Leithp 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the opinions.
  1. I have changed the plot around a bit and will look at it again in the future.
  2. Not sure, can't find any reference to this though.
  3. Removed quote.
  4. Yep, expanded on gameplay explanation of actions causing different outcomes etc. Included 13 game endings reference to section.
  5. Not sure about this. Sure, the game is based on the film, which was, itself based on the novel. The developers stated in the PC Gamer preview that the game was very much based in the film's universe and "the tension and emotion of the movie."
  6. I will look into this, although there are not many articles on the game that I noticed before.
  7. Will look into this soon.
  8. Done. Moved section up.
  9. Again, I did not notice any reference to the commercial success, but will dig around again for info.
• I will continue to work on the article and look into the further suggestions. Nreive (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Woody (Milhist editor)

• Rather than re-tell the 1982 Blade Runner film, the developers created a different story set in the same universe and serves as a side story. What serves as a side story, reword the sentence so it makes sense...
• I don't see Image:BR game setting.jpg as meeting the Fair-use criteria. It is not being discussed, it is being used purely for a decorative, not an encyclopedic purpose.
• Some of the characters are voiced with the presumption that the reader knows the film and its plot, we don't. I certainly don't. We need a completely neutral perspective, so we need to understand everything without ever having seen the film. So, I think that the film references section might need a rewrite so that you explain the role of the character in the film, then how it differs in the game.
• They went with the idea and expanded it, calling it "Voxels Plus". Seems a bit collquial to me.
• Basically, instead of just having one two-dimensional voxel, dozens of rotating voxels were used in the shape and depth of the actual polygon model data, making it true real-time 3D without requiring 3D hardware. Same again for the beginning of that sentence.
• The development section needs a thorough copyedit: doing all the work of creating the 3D models. doesn't flow very well to me.
• Overall, a thorough article, but it needs a copyedit: the prose is flaky in places and it is a bit too in-universe in places. Other than that, it is looking good. Well done for the work so far. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)