GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dibsing. Will usually get to GANs within a week or so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC) As a note, my reviewing style tends be weighted towards highlighting what I see as issues with prose style/flow, but I'm not necessarily going to die on the hill of every change I suggest. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Tokyo RPG Factory was founded to develop modern interpretations of the "golden age" of RPGs, such as Chrono Trigger.- This phrasing is confusing; to me it implies that the company makes modern remakes of golden age games. Maybe something like "...to develop modern games in the style of "golden age" RPGs", or "to develop modern games that drew inspiration from "golden age" RPGs"?
Its structure, which focused on- Tense confusion - if the company still exists, why past tense? If this structure changed later, it should be clarified as such. Also, the sentence is a bit grammatically awkward - structures don't focus.
A fourth project...- any updates on this?
modern re-imaginings of the story-driven...- this sentence has the same issues as the one in the lead.
He also noticed a number of Western-developed successors to golden age titles which proved commercially successful.- This sentence is a bit oddly placed at the end of the paragraph. It would make more sense earlier in the paragraph to provide context as to why Matsuda wanted to found a studio focused on these kinds of games. You may also want to clarify that "successors" refers to spiritual successors here rather than literal sequels, and if there's any RS that say what games he noticed, definitely mention a few for context.
Matsuda invited a number of people- do we know what people? company insiders? freelancers?
he final name of Tokyo RPG Factory- final makes it sound like the studio is now closed. Something like "...the studio changed its name to Tokyo RPG Factory..." maybe?
The studio's name was- you could probably combine this with the previous sentence for smoother flow
Their aim was- I suggest moving this so it's before the name change. Possibly reworking it so it's combined with the first half of the second sentence; in my opinion their ethos and aims are more important than the staffing policy.
For their first three planned games- planned is unnecessary, since all three games were released as opposed to planned then cancelled. I am curious as to whether they set out to do the snow/moon/flowers theme right off the bat, or if they came up with that after designing the very wintery Setsuna - any sourcing that discusses that?
Despite the concept for multiple titles- this sentence does not make sense grammatically.
While multiple games were planned from the outset, is still a bit unclear. Does it mean that they were planning all three of their eventual titles at once? Or do you mean that Setsuna was intended to be first in a series of Setsuna games but was instead released as a standalone? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I Am Setsuna saw positive responses- from who? fans? critics? both?
With a longer campaign than earlier titles and gameplay which shifted away from turn-based to action-based combat, Oninaki was a mechanical shift for the studio despite retaining their initial design philosophy of evoking older RPGs.- Lots going on here. Campaign length isn't really a game mechanic, and also, long campaigns to me are pretty standard for classic JRPGs. Do the sources indicate differently? And in what ways did the game continue to evoke older RPGs while shifting away from them?
...suffered a financial loss during that period- can we clarify why? Did the game not sell, or were there other reasons for the loss? For example, you can sell something like gangbusters but fail to make money because the price was too low, costs were too high, or you got hit with some other exorbitant expense that you had to cover for.
At this point I haven't reviewed the sourcing as I'm at work and it's not accessible to me there, but on a quick scan I don't see anything that jumps out as unreliable or problematic. No copyright or POV issues. Sole image is fine. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dibsing. Will usually get to GANs within a week or so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC) As a note, my reviewing style tends be weighted towards highlighting what I see as issues with prose style/flow, but I'm not necessarily going to die on the hill of every change I suggest. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Tokyo RPG Factory was founded to develop modern interpretations of the "golden age" of RPGs, such as Chrono Trigger.- This phrasing is confusing; to me it implies that the company makes modern remakes of golden age games. Maybe something like "...to develop modern games in the style of "golden age" RPGs", or "to develop modern games that drew inspiration from "golden age" RPGs"?
Its structure, which focused on- Tense confusion - if the company still exists, why past tense? If this structure changed later, it should be clarified as such. Also, the sentence is a bit grammatically awkward - structures don't focus.
A fourth project...- any updates on this?
modern re-imaginings of the story-driven...- this sentence has the same issues as the one in the lead.
He also noticed a number of Western-developed successors to golden age titles which proved commercially successful.- This sentence is a bit oddly placed at the end of the paragraph. It would make more sense earlier in the paragraph to provide context as to why Matsuda wanted to found a studio focused on these kinds of games. You may also want to clarify that "successors" refers to spiritual successors here rather than literal sequels, and if there's any RS that say what games he noticed, definitely mention a few for context.
Matsuda invited a number of people- do we know what people? company insiders? freelancers?
he final name of Tokyo RPG Factory- final makes it sound like the studio is now closed. Something like "...the studio changed its name to Tokyo RPG Factory..." maybe?
The studio's name was- you could probably combine this with the previous sentence for smoother flow
Their aim was- I suggest moving this so it's before the name change. Possibly reworking it so it's combined with the first half of the second sentence; in my opinion their ethos and aims are more important than the staffing policy.
For their first three planned games- planned is unnecessary, since all three games were released as opposed to planned then cancelled. I am curious as to whether they set out to do the snow/moon/flowers theme right off the bat, or if they came up with that after designing the very wintery Setsuna - any sourcing that discusses that?
Despite the concept for multiple titles- this sentence does not make sense grammatically.
While multiple games were planned from the outset, is still a bit unclear. Does it mean that they were planning all three of their eventual titles at once? Or do you mean that Setsuna was intended to be first in a series of Setsuna games but was instead released as a standalone? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I Am Setsuna saw positive responses- from who? fans? critics? both?
With a longer campaign than earlier titles and gameplay which shifted away from turn-based to action-based combat, Oninaki was a mechanical shift for the studio despite retaining their initial design philosophy of evoking older RPGs.- Lots going on here. Campaign length isn't really a game mechanic, and also, long campaigns to me are pretty standard for classic JRPGs. Do the sources indicate differently? And in what ways did the game continue to evoke older RPGs while shifting away from them?
...suffered a financial loss during that period- can we clarify why? Did the game not sell, or were there other reasons for the loss? For example, you can sell something like gangbusters but fail to make money because the price was too low, costs were too high, or you got hit with some other exorbitant expense that you had to cover for.
At this point I haven't reviewed the sourcing as I'm at work and it's not accessible to me there, but on a quick scan I don't see anything that jumps out as unreliable or problematic. No copyright or POV issues. Sole image is fine. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)