This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
God of War: Ascension article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "God of War: Ascension" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
God of War: Ascension is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God of War: Ascension is part of the God of War franchise series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2020. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we not think that the first paragraph is a bit heavy on the spoilers? Maybe the plot can be summarised without giving away that key characters are killed and how the game ends. -- Ryan Williams ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The multiplayer belongs in the Gameplay section as it is part of the gameplay. In regards to what should and what shouldn't belong to the Gameplay or Development section, Developmental stuff, like the God of War engine being retooled and anything like that (there are a couple things in my edit that can be put in Development which I will take care of after posting this) belong in Development. The date confirming multiplayer also belongs in Development for developmental history. Anything that involves the Gameplay of the multiplayer itself belongs in Gameplay. Also, you keep reverting and taking out "An early demonstration shows" from the multiplayer section. I have explained in my edit summaries why this needs to be here. I'll try to explain it better. Without including "An early demonstration shows", it'll make readers think that the battle with Polyphemus is the ONLY thing you do in the multiplayer. It is NOT as there will be more that we haven't seen yet. Your wording makes it sound like the battle with Polyphemus is the only thing multiplayer will feature. JDC808 ( talk) 07:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also try and avoid making statements (e.g. which I will take care of after posting this) and edits that smack of ownership ( [1]). Bluerim ( talk) 00:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of that writing was already your writing. In addition, the box art caption should be "working box art" as it is not official. "Working box art" is the universal caption used in just about every game article I've seen where it's using an unnofficial box art. I don't quite get why you're changing the part in the header either. It keeps a consistency across the articles.
The sub-section is necessary. Go look at other articles with multiplayer. It's either a sub-section or a main section. Without a sub-section or even a main section, it makes multiplayer look less important, which it's pretty important as it's the first time the series will feature it.
I'm not gonna disagree with trying to correct language, though in some areas, there wasn't really anything to correct, and some of it was already your language. Some of the other language is language the source used. Also, some of your language is a little misleading. For example, The trial demonstration indicated that players must first sell their champion's soul to one of four gods...... No. Todd Papy confirmed this, he didn't indicate players must sell their souls, he confirmed it, and the trial demonstration was of the actual battle with Polyphemus. Same thing goes for the female avatars, he confirmed that there will not be any in the multiplayer. Read the sources. JDC808 ( talk) 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Single-player section
Why are you taking away the information? There is nothing wrong with the information there, so why are you minimalizing it? The other games tell about the gameplay mechanics and combat systems, why shouldn't this one? The game isn't out yet. This information tells what's going to be in the game.
Development section
You continually change the information from this - "Director Papy notes that the game was not titled God of War IV to prevent confusion as it is a prequel to the trilogy, not a sequel. Ascension was chosen as it goes along with the game's story as well as the multiplayer, as players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." - to this - "The announcement officially confirmed the name of the game as God of War: Ascension, as both the game's story and the multiplayer feature describe how players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god."
Your version is incorrect. Todd Papy stated that the MULTIPLAYER is having players "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." He did not say this about the single-player. He just said that the name of the game goes along with the single-player and that was it. Also, Kratos DOES NOT ascend from an unknown hero to a god in this game. For one, Kratos is not unknown (just about everyone across Greece in the game knows who he is) and two, he DOES NOT become a god in this game (he still has Chains of Olympus and God of War I to get through). Also, God of War IV is mentioned in the previous paragraph, we should mention why this game is not God of War IV. JDC808 ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't obvious who I was talking to. Time and time again, this is not ownership. This is simply trying to do the best for these articles. Please point out the informalness of the language. This is language pulled straight from the sources with some tweaking (as to not use words like "you, I, we, us" etc.). Tight and concise is fine, unless you take away or change information incorrectly, which is what you're doing in some areas. In regards to blind reverts, like I said, I never blind revert. I know exactly what I'm doing when I revert. I read through what has been changed. So please, don't call me on blind reverts. JDC808 ( talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
To add to the tight and concise issue, they showed four new gameplay mechanics/combat systems. It's kinda hard to be more concise and trying to explain all four, especially the first one. JDC808 ( talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bluerim, what you were putting previously was this: A new "Life Cycle" mechanic showed Kratos capable of manipulating the environment, such as creating usable platforms from wreckage... and then later Other new features....manipulate time and control objects for puzzle solving, and freeze opponents during combat.
This was essentially repeating the Life Cycle mechanic as the mechanic does all of the above. I saw that you have fixed it, which is good. I'm going to tweak it just a little bit. JDC808 ( talk) 04:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The page is littered with errors.
God is the name of a particular god, i.e. the god believed to be supreme. The "g" in the word "god"--not the name "God"--should not be capitalized unless it is the first letter of the word "God" as it functions in a name, e.g., "Aries, the God of War," or "God, King and Creator of the Universe," that is, a proper noun.
Perhaps one of the main contributors of this page can comb through it to correct the errors. I would suppose that we have a collective interest in the proper usage of capital letters: we would not want to set a poor example for, or perpetuate misunderstandings among, the Wikipedia readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.66 ( talk) 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
First off, I'm really tired of you claiming that I make blind reverts. I absolutely do not. I read through the entire reversion for errors, and then I revert if I find many errors, which recently there have been very many.
On to the issues of the reversions. To start, what you've done doesn't incorporate several of Torchiest's suggestions. What was previously there is far more closer to his suggestions and was actually a paragraph that I wrote with some tweaks. Next, you essentially copy-pasted what you tried to do at Chains of Olympus, and in doing so, there's errors throughout. Firstly, the game is not out yet, there's tense issues throughout for this reason. Secondly, we don't know anything about secondary weapons (other than the ones he can steal, but those have limited usage) or how many magical abilities that will be acquired.
Moving on to Synopsis. There's not an issue with changing "press" to "media", however, it should be "the media" and it wasn't a "demo disc". Linda Hunt isn't needed in parenthesis. Later in the paragraph, "The war spawned the Furies, guardians of honor and enforcers of punishment." This is good (albeit "the" should be put before "guardians"), but you follow it with "The first traitor was Aegaeon, the Hecatonchires." with no lead way into this statement. The previous version gives a lead way into this that makes it flow much better and more understandable. The next paragraph is actually good, but I prefer the other version, at least until the game is released to give that paragraph more meat per se. In Gameplay with the blades (and lead as well), there's ambiguity in just saying they're fused to his wrists. Non-gamers are going to have some trouble understanding how he uses them and why they're fused to his wrists. Although "Blades of Chaos" is plural, in context of a sentence, its used singularly, because it's a pair of blades, not many pairs of blades. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been modified as it needed some tweaking. None of this is controversial or likely to spark any real debate with multiple users. The main correction is to the Settings section, which still (as with other GOW articles), read like a subjective travelogue. This is unnecessary, No other game articles are written in this fashion, and any mention of foes – particularly minor screen fillers as opposed to major Bosses – can and should be summarized in one sentence. This is not outrageous. There are other minor tweaks and these are also reasonable. If there any apparent mistakes, then the correct form of action is to alter that particular section’’ as opposed to a blanket revert.
Once again, it is perfectly reasonable to alter the article. It is by no means perfect, and in fact, no article ever is. I direct everyone’s attention to the excellent page on Ownership of Articles - WP:OWN. In the Overview, it specifically states:
Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
It also states:
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.
As the Overview states, having a hobby is a fine thing, and listing the articles one has contributed to on your personal page is OK (although showing signs of taking a stronger interest than most) , but the interest has to stay at this level. Also note that a blind revert, accompanied by a statement such as “No, it isn’t” certainly falls into this category. Blanket claims of a refusal to discuss when the point has been made and there is no acknowledgement of said point also falls into this category.
A quote from the Ownership page that describers an overzealous editor and says it all:
Remember, no article is perfect. All that aside, kudos for the good work is creating the article almost from nothing, and in particular working on developing the Plot narrative, which is always a slog the first time. Bluerim ( talk) 11:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see from this and a few examples such as Red Dead Redemption that the Setting section has indeed been written from the wrong perspective, in this case fancruft. The focus should be that the game utilises several real and fictional locations against a backdrop of Greek mythology. With this in mind, I'm reverting. This is also important as some of the Gameplay language was very simplistic and did not read like a formal encyclopedic article. If there are small errors somewhere pleaee feel free to correct, but note everything must be explained and not written from the POV of a GOW fan. Some of the Plot fell down in this respect. Thank you. Bluerim ( talk) 12:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't an issue of OWN, it was that corrected information in later sections (e.g. a tense issue in Development) was being reverted when you made the whole article reverts. That's why I asked to only edit the sections we were in disagreement with. I'll settle on the format. I wasn't necessarily against it, but rather what I had explained earlier. I'm going through and correcting things (e.g. the Eyes of Truth are not Orkos' eyes, they are the Oracle's eyes). -- JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 04:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I will get to this this week. — ΛΧΣ 21 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Going to read over these soon and see if there's any good stuff to include from them. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/09/16/qa-the-art-of-god-of-war-ascension/
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/03/08/god-of-war-ascension-qa-taking-kratos-to-the-next-level/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-sony-santa-monica-mastered-the-ps3
soundtrack
http://www.soundtrackgeek.com/v2/soundtrack-review-god-of-war-ascension/
http://www.assignmentx.com/2013/cd-review-god-of-war-ascension-soundtrack/
http://www.vgmonline.net/godofwarascension/
http://www.filmmusicmedia.com/reviews/godofwarascensionbytylerbatesreview -- JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
GameRankings' aggregate score adds nothing atop Metacritic's in this case (difference of less than a single percent...) and should be removed. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to list percentages apropos of nothing in the Reception section. Metacritic's text-based characterization of the Review at least gives context or a benchmark for what the number generally means. czar 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Today it got featured and I have never seen a video game page get featured, How is this Possible? Abdullah Al Manjur ( talk) 09:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
According to this article from VG247.
https://www.vg247.com/2020/05/12/god-of-war-ascension-grossed-100m/
God of War: Ascension shipped over 3 million units worldwide and grossed over $100 million in revenue. Can this be put in the sales section if created? Timur9008 ( talk) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
God of War: Ascension article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "God of War: Ascension" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
God of War: Ascension is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God of War: Ascension is part of the God of War franchise series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2020. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we not think that the first paragraph is a bit heavy on the spoilers? Maybe the plot can be summarised without giving away that key characters are killed and how the game ends. -- Ryan Williams ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The multiplayer belongs in the Gameplay section as it is part of the gameplay. In regards to what should and what shouldn't belong to the Gameplay or Development section, Developmental stuff, like the God of War engine being retooled and anything like that (there are a couple things in my edit that can be put in Development which I will take care of after posting this) belong in Development. The date confirming multiplayer also belongs in Development for developmental history. Anything that involves the Gameplay of the multiplayer itself belongs in Gameplay. Also, you keep reverting and taking out "An early demonstration shows" from the multiplayer section. I have explained in my edit summaries why this needs to be here. I'll try to explain it better. Without including "An early demonstration shows", it'll make readers think that the battle with Polyphemus is the ONLY thing you do in the multiplayer. It is NOT as there will be more that we haven't seen yet. Your wording makes it sound like the battle with Polyphemus is the only thing multiplayer will feature. JDC808 ( talk) 07:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also try and avoid making statements (e.g. which I will take care of after posting this) and edits that smack of ownership ( [1]). Bluerim ( talk) 00:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of that writing was already your writing. In addition, the box art caption should be "working box art" as it is not official. "Working box art" is the universal caption used in just about every game article I've seen where it's using an unnofficial box art. I don't quite get why you're changing the part in the header either. It keeps a consistency across the articles.
The sub-section is necessary. Go look at other articles with multiplayer. It's either a sub-section or a main section. Without a sub-section or even a main section, it makes multiplayer look less important, which it's pretty important as it's the first time the series will feature it.
I'm not gonna disagree with trying to correct language, though in some areas, there wasn't really anything to correct, and some of it was already your language. Some of the other language is language the source used. Also, some of your language is a little misleading. For example, The trial demonstration indicated that players must first sell their champion's soul to one of four gods...... No. Todd Papy confirmed this, he didn't indicate players must sell their souls, he confirmed it, and the trial demonstration was of the actual battle with Polyphemus. Same thing goes for the female avatars, he confirmed that there will not be any in the multiplayer. Read the sources. JDC808 ( talk) 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Single-player section
Why are you taking away the information? There is nothing wrong with the information there, so why are you minimalizing it? The other games tell about the gameplay mechanics and combat systems, why shouldn't this one? The game isn't out yet. This information tells what's going to be in the game.
Development section
You continually change the information from this - "Director Papy notes that the game was not titled God of War IV to prevent confusion as it is a prequel to the trilogy, not a sequel. Ascension was chosen as it goes along with the game's story as well as the multiplayer, as players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." - to this - "The announcement officially confirmed the name of the game as God of War: Ascension, as both the game's story and the multiplayer feature describe how players are "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god."
Your version is incorrect. Todd Papy stated that the MULTIPLAYER is having players "basically ascending from an unknown hero to a god." He did not say this about the single-player. He just said that the name of the game goes along with the single-player and that was it. Also, Kratos DOES NOT ascend from an unknown hero to a god in this game. For one, Kratos is not unknown (just about everyone across Greece in the game knows who he is) and two, he DOES NOT become a god in this game (he still has Chains of Olympus and God of War I to get through). Also, God of War IV is mentioned in the previous paragraph, we should mention why this game is not God of War IV. JDC808 ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't obvious who I was talking to. Time and time again, this is not ownership. This is simply trying to do the best for these articles. Please point out the informalness of the language. This is language pulled straight from the sources with some tweaking (as to not use words like "you, I, we, us" etc.). Tight and concise is fine, unless you take away or change information incorrectly, which is what you're doing in some areas. In regards to blind reverts, like I said, I never blind revert. I know exactly what I'm doing when I revert. I read through what has been changed. So please, don't call me on blind reverts. JDC808 ( talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
To add to the tight and concise issue, they showed four new gameplay mechanics/combat systems. It's kinda hard to be more concise and trying to explain all four, especially the first one. JDC808 ( talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bluerim, what you were putting previously was this: A new "Life Cycle" mechanic showed Kratos capable of manipulating the environment, such as creating usable platforms from wreckage... and then later Other new features....manipulate time and control objects for puzzle solving, and freeze opponents during combat.
This was essentially repeating the Life Cycle mechanic as the mechanic does all of the above. I saw that you have fixed it, which is good. I'm going to tweak it just a little bit. JDC808 ( talk) 04:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The page is littered with errors.
God is the name of a particular god, i.e. the god believed to be supreme. The "g" in the word "god"--not the name "God"--should not be capitalized unless it is the first letter of the word "God" as it functions in a name, e.g., "Aries, the God of War," or "God, King and Creator of the Universe," that is, a proper noun.
Perhaps one of the main contributors of this page can comb through it to correct the errors. I would suppose that we have a collective interest in the proper usage of capital letters: we would not want to set a poor example for, or perpetuate misunderstandings among, the Wikipedia readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.66 ( talk) 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
First off, I'm really tired of you claiming that I make blind reverts. I absolutely do not. I read through the entire reversion for errors, and then I revert if I find many errors, which recently there have been very many.
On to the issues of the reversions. To start, what you've done doesn't incorporate several of Torchiest's suggestions. What was previously there is far more closer to his suggestions and was actually a paragraph that I wrote with some tweaks. Next, you essentially copy-pasted what you tried to do at Chains of Olympus, and in doing so, there's errors throughout. Firstly, the game is not out yet, there's tense issues throughout for this reason. Secondly, we don't know anything about secondary weapons (other than the ones he can steal, but those have limited usage) or how many magical abilities that will be acquired.
Moving on to Synopsis. There's not an issue with changing "press" to "media", however, it should be "the media" and it wasn't a "demo disc". Linda Hunt isn't needed in parenthesis. Later in the paragraph, "The war spawned the Furies, guardians of honor and enforcers of punishment." This is good (albeit "the" should be put before "guardians"), but you follow it with "The first traitor was Aegaeon, the Hecatonchires." with no lead way into this statement. The previous version gives a lead way into this that makes it flow much better and more understandable. The next paragraph is actually good, but I prefer the other version, at least until the game is released to give that paragraph more meat per se. In Gameplay with the blades (and lead as well), there's ambiguity in just saying they're fused to his wrists. Non-gamers are going to have some trouble understanding how he uses them and why they're fused to his wrists. Although "Blades of Chaos" is plural, in context of a sentence, its used singularly, because it's a pair of blades, not many pairs of blades. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been modified as it needed some tweaking. None of this is controversial or likely to spark any real debate with multiple users. The main correction is to the Settings section, which still (as with other GOW articles), read like a subjective travelogue. This is unnecessary, No other game articles are written in this fashion, and any mention of foes – particularly minor screen fillers as opposed to major Bosses – can and should be summarized in one sentence. This is not outrageous. There are other minor tweaks and these are also reasonable. If there any apparent mistakes, then the correct form of action is to alter that particular section’’ as opposed to a blanket revert.
Once again, it is perfectly reasonable to alter the article. It is by no means perfect, and in fact, no article ever is. I direct everyone’s attention to the excellent page on Ownership of Articles - WP:OWN. In the Overview, it specifically states:
Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
It also states:
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.
As the Overview states, having a hobby is a fine thing, and listing the articles one has contributed to on your personal page is OK (although showing signs of taking a stronger interest than most) , but the interest has to stay at this level. Also note that a blind revert, accompanied by a statement such as “No, it isn’t” certainly falls into this category. Blanket claims of a refusal to discuss when the point has been made and there is no acknowledgement of said point also falls into this category.
A quote from the Ownership page that describers an overzealous editor and says it all:
Remember, no article is perfect. All that aside, kudos for the good work is creating the article almost from nothing, and in particular working on developing the Plot narrative, which is always a slog the first time. Bluerim ( talk) 11:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see from this and a few examples such as Red Dead Redemption that the Setting section has indeed been written from the wrong perspective, in this case fancruft. The focus should be that the game utilises several real and fictional locations against a backdrop of Greek mythology. With this in mind, I'm reverting. This is also important as some of the Gameplay language was very simplistic and did not read like a formal encyclopedic article. If there are small errors somewhere pleaee feel free to correct, but note everything must be explained and not written from the POV of a GOW fan. Some of the Plot fell down in this respect. Thank you. Bluerim ( talk) 12:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't an issue of OWN, it was that corrected information in later sections (e.g. a tense issue in Development) was being reverted when you made the whole article reverts. That's why I asked to only edit the sections we were in disagreement with. I'll settle on the format. I wasn't necessarily against it, but rather what I had explained earlier. I'm going through and correcting things (e.g. the Eyes of Truth are not Orkos' eyes, they are the Oracle's eyes). -- JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Bluerim ( talk) 04:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I will get to this this week. — ΛΧΣ 21 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Going to read over these soon and see if there's any good stuff to include from them. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/09/16/qa-the-art-of-god-of-war-ascension/
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/03/08/god-of-war-ascension-qa-taking-kratos-to-the-next-level/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-sony-santa-monica-mastered-the-ps3
soundtrack
http://www.soundtrackgeek.com/v2/soundtrack-review-god-of-war-ascension/
http://www.assignmentx.com/2013/cd-review-god-of-war-ascension-soundtrack/
http://www.vgmonline.net/godofwarascension/
http://www.filmmusicmedia.com/reviews/godofwarascensionbytylerbatesreview -- JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
GameRankings' aggregate score adds nothing atop Metacritic's in this case (difference of less than a single percent...) and should be removed. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to list percentages apropos of nothing in the Reception section. Metacritic's text-based characterization of the Review at least gives context or a benchmark for what the number generally means. czar 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Today it got featured and I have never seen a video game page get featured, How is this Possible? Abdullah Al Manjur ( talk) 09:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
According to this article from VG247.
https://www.vg247.com/2020/05/12/god-of-war-ascension-grossed-100m/
God of War: Ascension shipped over 3 million units worldwide and grossed over $100 million in revenue. Can this be put in the sales section if created? Timur9008 ( talk) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)